RELIGION  AND  EDUCATION 
IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 


Thomas 


Middleton 


13X11*53 
.Mb  £ 


[ton  ano  Education 

ifi  the 

Pjjtltpptnesi 


COMMISSIONS 

REPORTS 


By ,/ 

The  Very  Rev.  Thomas  C.  Middleton,  D.D.,  O.S.A. 

Villanova  College,  Penna. 


Clje  Dolphin  press 

825  Arch  Street,  Philadelphia,  Penna. 


Reprinted  from 

me  ecclesiastical  l&ebieto,  an*  me  SDolp&m 


REPORTS  OF  THE  PHILIPPINE  COMMISSIONS 
(OF  1899-1900)  ON  RELIGIOUS  AND 
EDUCATIONAL  MATTERS. 


IT  is  likely  that  the  historian  of  the  Philippines  and  its  vast  sister 
island  groups  of  Carolines  and  Marianas  will  look  for  sources 
of  information  relative  to  the  countless  problems  of  all  kinds  asso- 
ciated with  those  three  archipelagos  to  the  many  works  in  original, 
or  compiled  form  now  being  published  by  the  United  States 
Government.  Nor  without  good  reason.  Of  these  official,  there- 
fore presumably  trustworthy,  documents  not  a few,  as  is  readily 
acknowledged,  are  of  great  aid  to  scholars,  replete  as  they  are 
with  varied  data  not  otherwise  easily  attainable.  Especially  help- 
ful are  such  works  as  bear  on  the  present  material  conditions  of 
human  life  in  those  islands,  on  industries,  finance,  trade,  commerce, 
food  supplies,  as  well  as  the  very  many  varieties  of  racial  and 
linguistic  character,  in  the  inhabitants  thereof,  not  excluding  either 
the  numerous  and  sometimes  very  striking  singularities  in  type  of 
the  numberless  realms  of  fauna  and  flora  encountered  by  ex- 
plorers in  that  far-away  quarter  of  our  eastern  domain. 

Nor  among  our  Washington  treasures  should  the  scholar 
overlook  the  many  treatises  descriptive  of  the  meteorology  and 
topography  of  those  archipelagos,  the  latter  in  the  form  of  sur- 
veys, charts  and  atlases,  several  by  European  pen  and  pencil,  that 
have  been  given  to  scholardom  by  American  experts. 

Admirable  treatises  of  high  scientific  worth  are  in  the  reports, 
too,  of  the  Philippine  Commissioners  of  1899  and  1900  (under  Dr. 
Schurman  and  Judge  Taft),  of  which  all  we  need  say  here  is  that 
(in  their  four  volumes)  they  present  much  useful  and  interesting 
data  in  the  form  of  “ exhibits,”  tables,  and  papers  relative  to  vari- 
ous provinces  and  pueblos  in  those  islands,  along  with  statistics 
bearing  on  ethnology,  temperature,  physical  geography  and  the 
like. 

But  for  its  worthiness  from  a scientific  standpoint  on  neat  and 
pretty  complete  scale,  though  somewhat  unhandy  for  its  bulk,  yet 
none  the  less  authoritative  therefore,  is  a book  to  be  welcomed  by 


2 REPORTS  OF  THE  PHILIPPINE  COMMISSIONS 

statisticians,  the  voluminous  Pronouncing  Gazetteer  and  Geographic 
Dictionary  of  the  Philippines  [Washington,  1902],  by  far  and  away 
perhaps  as  good  a representative  of  its  class  as  is  to  be  had  in  our 
American  scholastic  world. 

For  therein,  besides  the  usual  features  of  its  kind,  are  much 
valuable  data  relating  to  temperature,  the  various  censuses  of  the 
islands,  from  the  earliest  in  1735  down,  lists  of  the  eighty-four 
tribal  names,  and  chief  dialects  in  use,  catalogues  of  plants,  woods, 
fruits,  minerals,  mammals,  fishes  and  birds,  then  a chronologic, 
table  of  the  principal  events  in  the  islands  from  A.  D.  1519  to 
1901,  with  a list  of  the  Governors-general  to  Diego  de  los  Rios, 
the  last  in  1 898.1 

Referring  to  this  Gazetteer  the  writer  has  observed  that  the 
latitude  of  Manila,  given  officially  (p.  183)  as  “ 140  35'  31"  N.,” 
is  identically  the  same  as  set  down  in  the  Atlas  de  Filipinas  of 
Jesuit  scientists  at  Manila,  also  published  by  Government  [Wash- 
ington, 1899],  a location  of  that  metropolis  (be  it  recalled)  that 
varies  only  twenty-nine  seconds  from  the  latitude  determined  for 
it  by  the  friar  geographer  of  the  Augustinians,  Villacorta,  who 
published  his  statistics  nearly  three-quarters  of  a century  ago.2 

Yet  among  these  noteworthy  honorable  works  of  artistic, 
scientific  and  historical  tone  are  several  others,  which,  though  fair- 
looking and  scholarly  enough,  will  be  found  replete  with  defects 
of  many  kinds,  against  equity,  good  taste,  and  ethics,  despite  their 
very  imposing  sponsorship  by  men,  too,  of  mark  in  the  realms  of 
letters  and  statecraft.3 

Such  are  the  reports  on  Philippine  affairs  by  the  two  Commis- 
sions headed  respectively  by  Dr.  Schurman  and  Judge  Taft.  They 
were  drawn  up  in  the  closing  years  of  the  century  just  closed. 
Among  other  subjects  treated  therein  are  various  pictures  of  reli- 
gious, educational  and  social  life  in  those  islands — of  churchmen, 
missionary  labors,  school-teachers,  institutes  of  industry,  orphan- 
ages, asylums  and  the  like.  They  are  entitled  : 

1 The  index  to  this  admirable  volume,  however,  is  in  a very  out-of-the-way 
place,  where  one  would  barely  look  for  it,  about  the  middle  of  the  book  itself.  (See 
p.  249.) 

1 A paper  on  these  two  atlases  (by  the  present  writer)  was  published  in  Records 
of  the  American  Catholic  Historical  Society  last  year.  (See  xiii,  4-21.) 

3 Among  the  members  of  the  two  Philippine  Commissions  were  litterati,  law- 
yers, judges,  writers.  We  name  them  later. 


ON  RELIGIOUS  AND  EDUCATIONAL  MATTERS 


3 


Report  of  the  Philippine  Commission  [Washington,  1900],  in 
two  vols.  of  774  pages.  (In  the  second  volume  is  the  testimony 
taken  by  the  Schurman  Commission.) 

Reports  of  the  Taft  Philippine  Commission  [Washington, 
1901],  one  volume  of  333  pages. 

Senate  Document , No.  190  [S.  1.  s.  a.,  but  Washington,  1901], 
one  volume  of  283  pages.  (This  contains  the  testimony  taken  by 
the  Taft  Commission.)4 

General  Observations. 

In  our  observations  on  these  Philippine  reports  we  shall  be 
guided  by  the  following  limitations  : 

1.  In  our  strictures  thereon  no  reflection  is  meant  on  the 
personal  character  of  the  nine  members  of  the  Commissions,  nor 
on  all  like.  Some  of  them,  perhaps,  were  fair-minded  men.  Any- 
how there  is  no  evidence  to  the  contrary.  But,  per  contra , others 
were  positively  unfair,  as  is  proved  too  by  their  papers  on  Philippine 
matters  published  prior  to  their  appointment  as  Commissioners. 
Therein  they  have  set  themselves  on  record  as  strongly  prejudiced 
against  the  very  defendants  they  were  pledged  to  try  with  judicial 
fairness. 

2.  Nor  are  our  remarks  to  be  taken  as  bearing  against  any- 
thing else  in  their  reports  than  the  Commissioners’  treatment  of 
such  subjects  as  the  Christian  religion,  Christian  churches,  Chris- 
tian education  and  the  Christian  life  of  the  natives,  with  their 
standards  of  Christian  civilization. 

3.  We  observe  also  that  throughout  this  paper  we  style  as 
“ defendants  ” that  numerous  body  of  philanthropists  in  the  Philip- 
pines and  its  associated  groups, — churchmen,  prelates,  mission- 
aries, friars,  teachers,  school  officers  and  others,  all  dedicated  to 
religion  in  one  way  or  another,  who  in  these  reports  have  been 
denounced  as  guilty  of  divers  crimes, — of  un-Christian,  nay  even 
unnatural,  conduct. 

The  defendants  have  been  charged  with  simony,  cruelty,  rapa- 
city, sensuousness,  or,  more  briefly,  with  having  used  their  sacred 
office  and  title  mainly  for  mere  self-gratification — charges  given 

4 For  the  sake  of  brevity  these  works  are  referred  to  respectively  as  Schurman, 
Taft,  and  Sen.  Doc. 


4 


REPORTS  OF  THE  PHILIPPINE  COMMISSIONS 


by  the  Commissioners  in  detail,  in  terms  however  that  our  pages 
refuse  to  reproduce  in  their  original  foulness. 

As  “ prosecutors  ” therefore  we  name  the  Commissioners  as  a 
body,  who  at  the  same  time  filled  the  part  of  judges,  investigators 
and  attorneys  for  the  prosecution. 


Church  Statistics  in  1898. 

To  our  task,  then.  But  a glance,  first, — a kind  of  bird’s-eye 
view,  as  it  were,  of  the  main  agencies  lately  at  work  in  the  civili- 
zation and  enlightenment  of  the  natives  of  those  islands,  where 
ever  since  the  days  of  the  Christian  pioneers  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, their  successors  (as  noticed  by  chroniclers  and  travellers, 
even  non-Catholic)  have  kept  to  the  task  as  staunch  upholders  of 
civilization  on  Christian  lines,  of  morality,  order,  law,  in  that  vast 
region  of  Malaysia,  of  countless  islands  large  and  small. 

In  1 898,  the  year  of  the  downfall  of  Spanish  rule  in  the  three 
great  archipelagos  of  Philippines,  Marianas,  and  Carolines,  there 
were  in  service  throughout  the  islands  1642  priests,  churchmen  of 
divers  ranks,  five  of  them  bishops,  one  the  Archbishop  of  Manila ; 
then  clergy  of  lower  degree,— vicars-general,  parrocos , mission- 
aries, nearly  all  members  of  religious  orders. 

According  to  Dr.  Schurman  (whose  figures  we  reproduce 
here),  the  clergy  of  the  Philippines  numbered  about  2383.  They 
were  communicated  to  him  (he  says)  by  the  Church  authorities 
at  Manila ; and  the  figures  are  no  doubt  right.  But  in  some 
cases,  at  least,  they  represent  the  totality  of  membership  in  the 
several  orders  of  churchmen,  not  only  in  actual  service  in  the 
islands,  but  the  members  of  the  various  brotherhoods — clerics  and 
laics  also  at  work  abroad  in  houses  and  colleges  of  their  order  in 
Europe,  Asia,  and  America.  Hence  the  figures  given  by  the 
Doctor  are  misleading.  Thus,  for  instance,  in  his  statistics  for  the 
Augustinians,  who  numbered  (he  says)  644,  are  included  203 
students  in  Spain,  in  course  of  education  at  colleges  of  their  order 
at  Valladolid  and  La  Vid,  in  preparation  for  active  mission  service 
in  eastern  lands,  in  care  of  their  province,  as  the  Philippines  and 
China.  But,  as  said  above,  the  number  of  priests  in  the  islands 
in  1898  was  only  1642.  Here  are  the  Doctor’s  figures  [i,  133- 
136]:  Augustinians,  644;  Benedictines,  14;  Capuchins,  36; 


ON  RELIGIOUS  AND  EDUCATIONAL  MATTERS. 


5 


Dominicans,  528;  Franciscans,  475  ; Jesuits,  164;  Lazarists,5 6  35, 
of  whom  27  only  were  priests ; Recoletos,  or  discalced,  unshod 
Augustinians,  522.  While  of  native  clergymen — “indigenas,” 
there  were  (according  to  Judge  Taft)  [p.  24]®  150,  “in  charge  of 
small  parishes.’’  All,  however,  employed,  as  were  their  white 
brothers,  in  various  branches  of  philanthropic,  religious,  and 
educational  work. 

In  the  Philippines,  it  may  be  stated,  were  967  districts  with 
care  of  souls, — parishes,  746;  mission  parishes,  105  ; then  misiones 
activas  (where  heathens  were  to  be  converted,  as  in  Mindanao 
and  some  parts  of  Luzon),  1 16.  In  all,  the  Catholic  population  of 
the  islands  for  1897-1898  was  6,559,998  souls.7 

Here  are  some  census  figures  regarding  church  statistics  of 
various  denominations  in  the  United  States  that  perhaps  may  be 
of  interest.  They  were  drawn  up  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Carroll,  non- 
Catholic,  and  are  as  follows  : 


Ministers. 

Churches. 

Communicants. 

Methodist  (17  bodies) 

39,220 

56,787 

6,084,755 

Baptists  (13  bodies) 

35,564 

51,142 

4,629,487 

Presbyterians  (12  bodies) 

12,207 

15,315 

1,635,016 

or,  on  an  average,  one  minister  for  every  155  Methodists ; one  for 
every  130  Baptists;  one  for  every  133  Presbyterians.  [From 
Literary  Digest,  N.  Y.,  for  January  31,  1903,  p.  158.] 

In  1898,  in  our  Malaysian  groups  of  archipelagos  with  a Cath- 
olic population  (as  said)  of  6,559,998  souls,  in  charge  of  1642 
missionaries,  we  thus  have  on  similar  average,  one  Catholic  priest 
for  every  3995  natives,— -a  fact  that  goes  to  show  very  conclu- 
sively that  Catholic  friars  by  no  means  were  overrunning  the  Phil- 
ippines. No,  those  islands  were  most  assuredly  not  a “ priest- 
ridden  land.”  The  various  orders  of  churchmen  (named  above), 
it  may  be  observed,  entered  missionary  service  in  the  Philippines 

5 Lazarists  as  commonly  known  in  the  U.  S.  appear  in  Spanish  statistics  variously 
as  Paules,  Paulistas,  de  San  Vicente  de  Paul.  Officially  Lazarists  are  known  as  mem- 
bers of  the  Congregatio  Missionum,  whence  the  letters  “ C.  M.”  after  their  names. 

6 From  other  sources,  however,  we  learn  that  the  number  of  native  priests  in 
the  Philippines  was  675  ; while  the  total  regular  clergy  was  only  967,  or  in  all  1 642. 

7 The  above  parish  figures  and  population  census  are  from  Judge  Taft’s  Report 
[p.  23]  and  they,  too,  are  right. 


6 


REPORTS  OF  THE  PHILIPPINE  COMMISSIONS 


in  the  following  years:  Augustinians,  in  1565;  Franciscans,  in 
1577;  Dominicans  and  Jesuits,  in  1581  (the  latter  driven  from  the 
islands  in  1768,  returned  in  1859);  Recoletos,  in  1606;  Capuchins, 
in  1886,  and  Benedictines  in  1895.8 

Besides  there  was  another  class  of  civilizing  agencies  in  those 
islands,  all  doing  steady  and  healthful  service,  bodies  by  no  means 
to  be  omitted  from  our  rolls  of  honor— the  various  sister- 
hoods of  (women)  religious  in  those  archipelagos,  as  Assumption- 
ists  (miswritten  “Ascensionists  ” by  Dr.  Schurman)  [ii,  458],  or 
sisters  de  la  Asuncion , under  the  rule  of  St.  Augustine ; Domini- 
canesses; Franciscans,  in  number  thirty-four — all  tertiaries  or 
members  of  third  orders ; then  Sisters  of  Charity — gentlewomen 
trained  in  the  service  of  God  and  their  neighbor  as  teachers,  guar- 
dians of  maidenhood,  nurses — all  devoted  to  various  works  of 
beneficence  in  school-room,  hospital,  asylum,  beaterio,  while  simi- 
larly all  were  adepts  of  greater  or  less  skill  in  the  practice  of 
homelike  virtues,  preeminently  peculiar  of  the  feminine  world  in 
every  Christian  commonwealth — contemplation  and  prayer,  other- 
wise the  love  of  learning  on  lofty  lines  with  the  love  of  God- 
religion — basis  of  true  exalted  patriotism.  (At  this  writing  the 
number  of  these  self-sacrificing  women-philanthropists  in  those 
tropical  regions  is  not  known,  with  the  two  exceptions  above.9) 

Renowned  among  the  islanders  were  the  four  great  beaterios 
— homes,  retreat-houses,  as  well  as  boarding-schools,  for  needy 
maidens,  thence  styled  beatas.  They  were  the  following : de  la 
Compafiia  de  Jesus , or  San  Ignacio,  founded  in  1684,  by  Ignacia 
de  Espiritu  Santo,  a pious  mestiza  of  Binondo ; St.  Catharine  of 
Siena,  founded  by  Dominicans  under  their  provincial,  Juan  de 
San  Domingo,  in  1696,  both  of  Manila  origin  ; San  Sebastian  of 
Calumpang,  founded  in  1719  by  four  Indian  maidens,  though 
seventeen  years  later,  in  1736,  put  under  the  direction  of  Reco- 
letos ; then  Santa  Rita  of  Cascia,  founded  at  Pasig,  in  1740,  by  the 
eamest-souled  and  very  energetic  parroco  of  that  pueblo,  Felix 
de  Trillo,  Augustinian,  under  the  title  of  la  Coticepcion. 

Then  there  were  orphan  asylums.  Thus,  at  Mandaloya,  a few 

8 Information  as  to  the  date  of  entrance  of  the  Lazarists  is  not  at  hand.  Accord- 
ing to  Dr.  Schurman,  the  Lazarists  arrived  in  1862.  [ Schurman , i,  135.] 

9 But  since  these  pages  were  put  in  print,  we  learn  that  the  Sisters  of  Charity  in 
the  islands  numbered  184,  of  whom  147  were  Spanish,  22  mestizas,  14  Filipinas,  and 
one  Portuguese. 


ON  RELIGIO  US  AND  ED  UCA  TIONAL  MA  TTERS  7 


miles  distant  from  Manila,  where  the  Augustinians  had  an  asylum 
for  girls,  established  in  1883,  were  several  Indian  sisters— natives 
— who,  with  their  Spanish  sisters  of  the  Asuncion,  cared  for 
122  orphan  girls,  whom  they  housed,  fed,  clothed,  and  taught. 
During  the  late  invasion  of  the  islands,  these  Indian  maidens, 
driven  with  the  others  from  their  home,  fled  to  Manila  for  shel- 
ter. At  Mandaloya,  the  little  girls  were  taught  needle-work,  em- 
broidery, laundry,  ironing,  and  such  other  industries  as  would 
enable  them  to  gain  an  honest  livelihood. 

While  at  Tambobong,  not  far  from  Manila,  was  a similar  es- 
tablishment for  boys,  that  previously  had  been  conducted  at 
Malabon,  still  earlier  at  Guadalupe,  a pueblo  in  care  of  Augus- 
tinians, where,  in  1882,  under  the  title  of  Our  Lady  of  Consola- 
tion, and  St.  Thomas  of  Villanova,  the  Fathers  established  the 
first  orphanage  in  Luzon,  transferred  thither  from  Mandaloya, 
now  given  over  to  girls.  At  Tambobong  asylum,  145  little  lads 
(without  father  or  mother)  were  trained  as  printers,  bookbinders, 
tailors.  In  1 898,  or  soon  after,  both  asylums  were  destroyed,  with 
their  libraries,  museums,  machinery,  and  all. 

In  care  then  of  those  guardians  of  Christian  society,  of  its 
shrines,  homes  of  learning  and  industry,  throughout  the  various 
islands,  were  many  institutions  that  make  for  the  higher  life  of 
mankind — establishments  of  religion,  education,  public  benefi- 
cence, some  of  them  dating  from  the  first  years  of  the  re-discovery 
of  the  Philippines  under  Legazpi  and  his  companion,  the  Friar 
cosmographer  and  sailor,  Urdaneta,  of  the  Augustinians. 

Thus  in  1897-1898,  as  we  learn  from  official  statistics,  in  the 
Philippines  and  its  sister  groups,  were  the  following  institutions  of 
the  higher  life : university,  one ; colleges  (number  not  known) ; 
seminaries  for  cleric  training,  five ; orphanages,  two ; hospitals, 
ten;  pueblo,  or  common  schools,  for  Indians,  2140;  beaterios,  or 
homes  for  maidens,  four ; besides  many  societies  or  guilds  of  reli- 
gious and  beneficial  character  attached  to  the  several  churches  in 
cities  and  pueblos,  known  variously  as  confraternities,  sodalities — 
hermandades.  Named  in  Philippine  statistics  we  find  the  follow- 
ing : hermandad  de  la  Misericordia,  that  as  early  as  1596  estab- 
lished the  hospital  of  San  Juan  de  Dios,  though  a still  earlier 
asylum  for  the  sick— San  Lazaro,  had  been  opened  in  1578,  by 
the  Franciscan  lay  brother  Juan  Clemente ; then  the  Recoleto 


8 


REPORTS  OF  THE  PHILIPPINE  COMMISSIONS 


confraternity  of  Jesus  Nazareno,  founded  in  1651  ; the  confrater- 
nities of  the  Most  Holy  Sacrament  at  Manila  Cathedral  church 
in  1604,  and  a similar  guild  at  Binondo  in  1681  ; while  from  the 
first  years  of  their  entrance  into  Philippine  fields  Augustinian  and 
Dominican  had  erected  branch  fraternities  of  their  order  in  well 
nigh  every  mission-town.  In  1571,  Cebu  witnessed  the  formation 
of  the  first  confraternity  in  the  islands — Nuestra  Senora  de  la  Cor- 
rea, or  Our  Lady  of  the  Girdle,  by  pioneer  Augustinians  ; Manila, 
the  second  shortly  after. 

In  his  “ Exhibit  ” [No.  vi] — a valuable  and  very  interesting 
display  of  “ Public  Instruction  . . . during  Spanish  Sover- 

eignty ” in  those  islands,  Dr.  Schurman,  though  naming  the 
greater  number  of  these  establishments  of  high  rank,  of  religious 
and  social  eminence,  still  has  omitted  some,  as  will  be  noticed. 
\Schurman,  ii,  456-476.10] 

Charges  Against  the  Reports. 

In  our  analysis  of  these  reports  we  purpose  to  show  that  in 
framing  them  the  Commissioners,  contrary  to  the  canons  of  judi- 
cial as  well  as  historic  equity,  were  in  fault  also  on  many  points  of 
vital  importance  to  the  defendants. 

I.  Because  of  numerous  omissions  in  the  evidence  accepted, 
however,  by  the  Commissioners  as  conclusive — evidence,  more- 
over, that  bore  strongly  in  favor  of  the  defence,  on  such  points  as 
(a)  the  primal  and  contemporary  state  of  civilization  and  refine- 
ment in  the  Philippines ; (b)  the  present  fairly  high  character  of 
the  natives  for  intellectual  and  moral  virtuousness ; ( c ) the  work 
of  the  Church  in  uplifting  the  Philippines  and  other  Malaysian 
island-groups  to  a lofty  plane  of  domestic  and  social  welfare , ( d ) 
with  school  facilities  and  good  results  therefrom  in  even  far  dis- 
tant islands  of  those  great  archipelagos. 

Again,  in  these  reports  you  will  find  little  or  no  mention, 
except  maybe  in  some  out-of-the-way  place,  of  the  innumerable 
monuments  of  intellective  and  material  art,  as  shrines,  church- 
buildings,  conventos,  libraries,  cabinets  of  physics,  of  natural  his- 

18  In  this  respect  the  Taft  report  is  meagre,  in  fact  very  deficient,  the  Judge 
(unless  we  mistake)  mentioning  only  San  Jos6  College  at  Manila,  that  had  been 
opened  in  1601,  by  the  Jesuit  visitor  of  their  missions — Luis  Gomez.  [&/i.  Doc., 

26-46.] 


ON  RELIGIOUS  AND  EDUCATIONAL  MATTERS 


9 


tory,  many  of  them  centuries  old,  with  no  others  like  them  in 
Eastern  or  Asiatic  lands,  all  in  charge  of  scholarly  and  enthusiastic 
men  and  women  devoted  to  lofty  planes  of  thought, — all  tokens 
of  high-grade  civilization,  to  be  discerned  (let  it  be  marked  very 
plainly)  only  in  countries  and  lands  of  thorough  Christian  ideals. 
As  a most  striking,  though  very  gloomy,  contrast  to  this  picture 
here  with  deep  pity  we  need  but  a glance  at  the  semi-barbaric 
islands  in  Malaysia  not  under  Christian  influence  or  sway — the 
Sulu,  or  Jolo  group,  then  Borneo,  Java,  where  the  natives,  under 
the  fetters  of  Mammon,  are,  as  it  were,  little  else  than  savages, 
or  bondsmen  to  grasping  money-making  European  taskmasters 
and  traders. 

The  omission  in  these  reports  of  the  above-named  material 
proofs  of  intellective  worth  among  the  Philippines  is  to  be  empha- 
sized very  strongly.  Throughout  their  papers  (we  must  add), 
the  Commissioners  seem  to  have  been  lacking  in  appreciative,  if 
not  even  friendly,  spirit  also ; to  have  displayed  throughout  an 
unkindly  tone  with  reference  to  all  Christian  concerns,  while 
spaiing  (as  will  appear)  no  space  for  the  embalmment  therein  of 
whatever  could  be  raked  together  derogatory  in  any  way  to  the 
manifold  grandeur  of  Christian  aestheticism  in  the  East. 

2.  Because  evidence,  which  was  not  lacking  to  the  defence, 
if  admitted  at  all,  was  accepted  in  grudging,  unhandsome  spirit, 
as  it  were.  Thus,  while  in  the  Schurman  report,  as  observed, 
some  of  these  model  art-works  have  been  named,  in  his  succes- 
sor’s only  one  has  been  mentioned.  (See  above.) 

3.  Moreover,  the  prosecution  has  admitted  as  final  and  con- 
clusive, without  the  slightest  substantiation — proof  of  any  kind, 
whatever  testimony,  even  of  the  flimsiest,  could  be  twisted  and 
stretched,  to  the  discredit  of  the  defendants. 

4.  In  many  of  their  allusions  to  Philippine  life,  ideals,  cus- 
toms, people,  missionaries,  institutions,  and  the  like,  Christianity, 
that  is,  the  Catholic  religion,  if  referred  to  at  all,  is  with  deprecia- 
ting tone.  Here  are  some  samples.  In  touching  on  school  mat- 
ters, Dr.  Schurman  declares  it  a faulty  practice,  a 

“mistaken  idea  of  putting  instruction  in  Christian  doctrine  before 
reading  and  writing. ’ ’ [ Schurman , ii,  457.] 

Judge  Taft,  too,  finds  occasion  for  censure,  in  that 


IO  REPORTS  OF  THE  PHILIPPINE  COMMISSIONS 

“in  the  typical  provincial  school  at  first  a kind  of  religious  primer 
was  read  in  the  native  language,  and  that  later  a book  on  Christian 
doctrine  was  taught.  ’ ’ [ Taft , 1 06 . ] 

Indeed.  So  it’s  wrong,  then,  to  teach  young  children  their 
religion  ? Yet,  if  we  mistake  not,  and  as  we  stoutly  believe,  it  is 
still  healthy  common  practice  in  all  well  brought  up  Christian 
home-circles  to  teach  a child  the  principles  of  good  behavior  at  its 
mother’s  knee,  long  too  before  it  has  entered,  or  even  dreamed  of, 
the  very  entangling  mysteries  of  A-B-C  books,  or  pot-hooks. 
Why  then  in  the  Philippines  should  similar  ethical  usage  be 
deemed  out  of  place  ? 

Judge  Taft,  moreover,  fairly  revels,  it  seems,  in  his  fancy  for 
flaw-picking  at  the  slightest  chance  in  any  matters  that  may  be 
interpreted  to  the  disfavor  of  churchmen.  Just  here  one  instance 
merely.  In  his  report,  where  engaged  in  building  up  a case 
against  the  defendants,  in  order  apparently  to  score  a point  to  their 
discomfort,  he  has  taken  their  testimony  to  pieces,  instead  of  giv- 
ing it  in  full ; then  quotes  some  fragments,  which  apparently  put 
the  defendants  in  the  wrong.  Thus  to  a consideration  of  the  testi- 
mony of  the  provincial  of  the  Franciscans  the  Judge  allots  a little 
over  a page  [Taft,  25,  26]  ; to  the  Augustinian  provincial  less  than 
two  lines  [Id.,  2 6,  27],  and  to  the  Bishop  of  Jaro  less  than  ten 
\Jd.,  29],  or  at  most  in  all  a very  meagre  two  pages,  though  else- 
where these  very  defendants  have  been  styled  by  the  Judge  as 
men  of  high  rank.  Though  printed  in  a wholly  different  work, 
one  may  find  in  full  the  testimony  of  these  three  churchmen 
[Sen.  Doc.,  63-71,  for  Villegas  of  the  Franciscans ; 71-80,  for 
Lobo,  of  the  Augustinians;  1 12-122,  for  the  bishop] — a book, 
however,  as  may  be  noticed,  of  wholly  different  title,  one  more- 
over, that  the  reader  of  the  Judge’s  report  will  not  likely  know 
anything  about  until  maybe  long  after  his  mutilations  have 
wrought  their  effect  in  the  reader’s  mind.  (Later  we  will  give 
other  samples  of  the  Judge’s  expertness  in  word-twisting.) 

Again  Judge  Taft  is  more  than  once  in  conflict  with  his  own 
words.  Thus,  to  churchmen  in  the  Philippines  he  pays  a rather 
neat  eulogy  by  saying  that 

“ the  friar  . . was  usually  the  only  man  of  intelligence  and 

educations”  [Taft,  24.] 

Again  that 


ON  RELIGIOUS  AND  EDUCATIONAL  MATTERS 


II 


‘ ‘ There  were,  of  course,  many  educated  gentlemen  of  high  moral 
standards  among  the  friars.  The  bishops  and  provincials  who  testified 
were  all  of  this  class.”  [Id.,  28.] 

While  per  contra  of  the  natives  he  declares  that 

“ . . . the  masses  of  the  people  are  ignorant,  credulous  and 

childlike”  [Id.,  15],  an  “ ignorant  people.”  [Id.,  32.] 

Yet  all  of  a sudden  when  treating  of  the  charges  brought  by 
these  self-same  “ ignorant  ” and  “ credulous  ” prosecutors  against 
their  old-time  missionaries  and  friends—"  gentlemen  (too)  of  high 
moral  standards,” — the  Judge  with  a rather  unaccountable  face- 
about  movement  would  have  us  not  believe  these  defendants. 
That  is,  to  use  his  own  words, 

“ the  charges  ( against  churchmen ) have  considerable  truth  in  them  ” 
[Id.,  29];  . . the  statements  of  the  bishops  and  friars  . . . 

cannot  be  accepted  as  accurate.”  [Id.,  30.] 

In  fact,  in  these  kaleidoscope-looking  reports,  so  commonly 
in  them  are  admissions  in  favor  of  the  defendants  matched  with 
denouncements  of  everything  churchly,  that,  according  wholly 
to  his  own  proper  frame  of  spirit,  be  this  friendly  or  adverse  to 
churchman,  the  reader  may  be  warranted  in  drawing  pretty  much 
any  kind  of  conclusion  he  is  seeking, — a seeming  abnormality 
however  of  unscholarly  psychology,  exemplified  in  the  reports 
of  the  very  Commissioners  themselves,  who,  though  arguing  seem- 
ingly from  self-same  premises  (the  evidence  in  their  reports  being 
practically  identical),  yet  reach  conclusions  diametrically  opposite. 

Thus,  in  describing  the  high  grade  of  refinement  among  the 
Philippines,  Dr.  Schurman  styles  them  as  "civilized.”  [Schur- 
man,  12.] 

“ A majority  of  the  inhabitants  . . . (he  says  are ) possessed 

of  a considerable  degree  of  civilization.”  [Id.,  16.] 

There  are 

‘ ‘ provinces  . . . whose  people  are  most  highly  civilized.  ’ ’ 

[Id.,  18.] 

But,  according  to  the  Judge,  these  very  same  people  are  “igno- 
rant,” etc.  [See  quotations  ahead.] 

Again,  according  to  the  Doctor, 

“ the  normal  school,  conducted  by  the  Jesuits,  at  Manila,  . . . 

has  done  good  work  in  training  teachers,  etc.  [Schurman,  i,  34.] 


12  REPORTS  OF  THE  PHILIPPINE  COMMISSIONS 

The  J udge,  however,  with  no  exception,  would  have  us  believe 
(in  his  section  on  “ Education  under  Spanish  rule  ”)  that 

“native  teachers  (are)  tediously  mechanical,  noisy,  and  hardly 
effective,  or  economical.  ’ ’ \Taft,  105,  106.] 

That  is  to  say,  in  these  reports  where  now  and  then  one  Com- 
missioner hails  a gleam  of  sunshine  in  the  intellectual  firmament 
of  the  Philippines,  the  other  at  no  time  seems  to  descry  aught  but 
hopeless  chaos  and  gloom.  The  Doctor  styles  the  Philippines 
enlightened;  the  Judge,  barbaric.  Or,  more  briefly,  to  sum  up 
these  few  vari-colored  illustrations  of  judicial  conflicts  relating  to 
the  religious,  ethical,  and  social  characteristics  of  those  islanders 
(of  which  the  reader  will  meet  several  others  before  ending  these 
pages),  the  deductions  in  matters,  too,  of  very  weighty  moment 
drawn  by  the  Commissioners  (they  say)  from  the  testimony  of 
their  own  witnesses,  will  be  found  in  conflict  with  it.  At  the  same 
time,  too,  the  reader  will  notice  that  the  Commissioners  themselves 
are  in  open  conflict  with  one  another. 

We  need  here  make  a reflection  that  we  have  long  been  pon- 
dering over,  in  view  of  the  almost  absolute  unqualified  condem- 
nation (in  these  reports)  of  the  whole  past  in  the  Philippines,  of 
all  systems  of  rule,  of  ethics,  piety,  faith,  law,  good  works,  in 
brief,  of  the  grandeurs  of  our  Christian  Malaysia- — glories  that 
yet  have  been  attested  with  enthusiastic  praise  by  numberless 
travellers,  scholars,  explorers,  even  non-Catholic.  Was  there  then 
(in  1899-1900)  at  Manila  in  and  around  these  two  courts  of  our 
Commissioners  some  mysterious,  occult,  (maybe  even)  mischief- 
making power  at  work  to  set  at  odds  with  one  another  all  con- 
cerned in  those  courts  of  inquiry  and  trial-judges,  witnesses, 
prosecutors  ?— to  mislead  them  in  defiance  even  of  their  own  phil- 
osophic—nobler— instincts  of  the  evidence  of  their  own  eyes  and 
ears  ? And  did  this  malign  genius  (as  at  times  seems  to  have 
happened  in  America  and  Europe,  why  then  not  in  Asia?)  not  try 
its  hardest  with  the  aid  of  cable  and  printing-press  to  blot  out 
from  the  inhabitants  of  the  Philippines  all  respect  for  their  one- 
time happy  and  prosperous  sacred  and  civil  estate,  to  overturn  in 
their  souls  every  mark  of  regard  and  love  for  the  Christian  faith, 
for  Christian  law,  for  Christian  policy  ? (Of  similar  evil  influences 
against  our  schools,  altars,  and  homes,  here,  and  in  Europe,  we 
have  read  before.)  But  let  this  go  as  a mere  reflection. 


ON  RELIGIO  US  AND  ED  UCA  TIONAL  MA  TTERS  1 3 


Genesis  of  the  Reports. 

So  much  then  for  a mere  bird’s-eye  view,  as  it  were,  of  our 
field  of  instruction,  and  scholastic  entertainment  in  these  four 
volumes  of  Manila  reports,— -a  general  perspective  of  the  work 
done  in  those  high  assemblies  in  the  Philippines. 

Now  for  our  analysis  of  these  reports  in  detail.  And  first  as 
to  the  genesis  of  the  courts  themselves,  that  in  their  legislative  and 
judicial  pomp  and  grandeur,  in  their  sittings  at  Manila  in  the 
closing  years  of  the  century  just  passed,  gave  Malaysia  a forecast 
of  the  new  rule  and  the  new  order  of  things. 

The  first  Commission  (under  Dr.  Schurman)  (it  may  be  pre- 
mised) began  its  hearings  in  the  early  summer  of  1 899,  less  than 
a year  after  the  downfall  of  Spain  in  the  East.  [ Schurman , i,  1.] 

At  this  time,  we  may  observe,  outside  of  Spain  knowledge  of 
the  Philippines  was  meagre  enough.  As  shown  in  our  encyclo- 
pedias, histories,  and  atlases,  those  islands  were  practically  a terra 
incognita  of  common  reputation  only  for  hemp  and  cigars. 

Members  of  this  Commission  were : Jacob  Gould  Schurman, 
LL.D.;  Major  General  Elwell  S.  Otis,  of  the  U.  S.  Army;  Rear 
Admiral  George  Dewey,  of  the  U.  S.  Navy ; Charles  Denby,  LL.D., 
lawyer,  diplomat,  formerly  Minister  to  China ; Dean  Conant  Wor- 
cester, professor  of  zoology  and  botany ; while  John  R.  McArthur 
was  appointed  Secretary  and  Counsel  of  the  Commission,  and 
Rutherford  Corbin,  Assistant  Secretary.  [ Schurman , i,  1 .] 

This  Commission  was  charged  to  investigate  the  conditions  of 
life  in  those  Asiatic  archipelagos,  to  suggest  solutions  of  problems 
bearing  on  “ order,  peace  and  public  welfare,”  while  it  was  in- 
structed, moreover,  to  observe  due  regard  for  “ all  ideals,  customs 
and  institutions  ” of  the  inhabitants,11— all  problems,  it  may  be 
added,  that  so  far  in  the  history  of  philosophic  and  political  specu- 
lations have  taxed  gravely  the  wisdom  of  even  the  sagest  geniuses 
among  men. 

It  is  matter  for  deep  reflection  that  our  own  non-white  fellow 
inhabitants  in  the  United  States— blacks,  mulattos,  Indians,  as  well 
as  people  of  other  colors,  are  not  yet  on  the  same  social,  if  not 
also  political,  standing  with  whites. 

11  “Tribes,”  however,  is  the  word  used  by  President  McKinley  in  his  letter  of 
instructions  to  the  first  Commission,  for  which  see  Schurman,  i,  186. 


14  REPORTS  OF  THE  PHILIPPINE  COMMISSIONS 


The  second  Commission  (under  Judge  Taft)  opened  its  ses- 
sions 

“ in  July  (1900)  and  continued  from  time  to  time  until  late  in  Octo- 
ber ” 

of  the  same  year,  having  begun 

“its  legislative  and  executive  duties  under  the  instructions  of  the 
President  ’ ’ 

on  the  first  of  September  previous.  [Taft,  16,  19.]  Members  of 
this  commission  were  William  H.  Taft,  Dean  C.Worcester,  Luke  E. 
Wright,  Henry  C.  Ide,  Bernard  Moses,  Ph.D.,  profe9sor  of  his- 
tory and  political  economy.  [Taft,  15.]  As  to  the  other  officers 
of  this  Commission,  and  the  reasons  for  the  dissolution  of  its  pre- 
decessor, positive  information  is  lacking.  It  would  appear,  how- 
ever, that  the  Schurman  Commission,  whose  report  in  a way  is 
rather  favorable  to  the  defendants,  was  withal  somewhat  too  manly, 
of  too  independent  frame,  to  suit  the  schemes  of  interested  par- 
ties in  the  political  and  commercial  world  in  the  United  States, 
especially  that  had  an  eye  mainly  on  the  mere  material  possibili- 
ties in  the  Philippines.  (The  race  of  “ boomers  ” of  various  kinds 
was  not  yet  extinct.)  So  much,  then,  for  the  personnel  of  the  two 
Commissions. 

Mode  of  Procedure  in  the  Commissions. 

Now  for  a panorama  of  their  acts,  during  the  years  1899- 
1900.  From  details  gleaned  here  and  there  in  their  reports  as  to 
the  mode  of  procedure  employed  in  assembly — a very  important 
feature  for  the  student  in  order  to  discern  the  significance  of  their 
moves  in  this  stupendous  drama  of  politics — we  learn  that 

“ in  preparing  their  several  papers  the  members  of  the  Commission 
(the  first)  . . . derived  data  not  only  from  Spanish  books  and 

documents,  . . . but  also  from  evidence  taken  from  witnesses," 

. . . [Schurman,  ii,  vii.] 

These  witnesses,  as  we  learn  elsewhere  in  the  Doctor’s  report, 
were  46,  their  names  appearing  in  the  index  at  the  end  of 
the  second  volume  [ii,  477-486] ; and  among  them,  as  far  as 
we  can  make  out,  were  only  three  churchmen,  of  whom  more 
later  on. 

The  names  of  the  witnesses  before  the  second  Commission 


ON  RELIGIOUS  AND  EDUCATIONAL  MATTERS 


15 


(under  Judge  Taft)  number  38,  to  be  found  with  their  testimony 
in  extenso  in  Sen.  Doc.,  47-283.  Eleven  of  them  were  church- 
men, two  of  whom  had  already  testified  before  Dr.  Schurman. 
Thus,  of  the  84  witnesses  before  the  two  Commissions,  twelve 
only  were  for  the  defence,  in  fact  were  defendants  themselves. 

The  reader  is  not  to  overlook  this  plain  matter  of  fact,  that  the 
clergy  in  the  Philippines  and  its  sister  archipelagos,  hundreds  and 
hundreds  in  number,  were  in  control,  not  only  of  many  institu- 
tions of  learning,  art-work,  science ; of  colleges,  seminaries,  pue- 
blo schools,  established  throughout  those  islands,  but  besides  were 
entrusted  as  so  many  bulwarks  of  order,  peace,  and  law,  with 
certain  government  functions  in  nearly  all  the  provinces,  especially 
where  Indians  were  the  sole  population.  Here  in  a general  way  the 
missionaries  were  the  instructors,  guides,  caretakers  of  the  Philip- 
pine commonwealth  in  spiritual  and  temporal  concerns.  For  these 
duties  the  friars  had  received  especial  training  in  their  colleges  in 
Europe.  They  were  expert  in  the  management  of  Indians.  While 
also,  it  may  be  noted,  such  blending  of  the  two  fields  of  Church  and 
civil  authority  and  power  in  the  Philippines  in  one  and  the  same  in- 
dividual, who,  at  the  same  time,  was  the  minister  of  religion,  as  well 
as  the  main  person  of  prominence  or  standing  among  the  natives 
themselves,  is  frequently  described  in  these  reports  {Taft,  25, 
26],  though  never  in  commendatory  terms.  In  our  Government 
schools  for  Indians  " out  West,”  similar  union  of  Church  and  State 
in  the  person  of  one  and  the  same  incumbent,  whether  mere  trader, 
politician,  money-maker,  or  even  minister  of  God,  has  been  exem- 
plified often.  (But  this,  however  fruitful  in  reflections,  is  a digres- 
sion.) As  to  the  Doctor’s  valuation  of  topics  of  such  magnitude, 
we  return  to  his  reports.  There  we  find  a paper  of  but  jyi  pages 
in  length  at  the  furthest,  devoted  to  clergy  {Schurman,  i,  130- 
136];  to  education,  another  paper  of  25  pages  {Id.,  i,  17-42];  and 
a third,  on  “ Public  Instruction  in  the  Philippines  during  the  time 
of  Spanish  Sovereignty,”  otherwise  “ Exhibit  VI,”  of  20  pages 
{Id.,  ii,  456-476].  That  is,  of  the  775  pages  of  his  reports,  only 
52 y2,  not  as  much  as  7 percent.,  have  been  devoted  to  the  main 
civilizing  agencies  at  work  in  the  Philippines  in  their  various  fields 
of  peace,  wherein  the  prosperity  and  happiness  of  about  7,000,000 
souls  were  concerned — a somewhat  meagre  allowance  of  literature 
(it  may  be  remarked)  on  the  main  subject  of  all — a species  of  lit- 


1 6 REPORTS  OF  THE  PHILIPPINE  COMMISSIONS 


erary  vacuity  that  would  indicate,  it  seems,  somewhat  of  a lack  of 
proportion  with  the  balance  of  the  Doctor’s  report. 

But  to  continue  with  our  Schurman  sessions,  wherein  we  are 
told  that 

“ the  witnesses  came  in  freely,  . . . from  all  classes  of  the 

people,  and  they  represented  all  varieties  of  opinion.  ’ ’ [Schurman, 
ii,  vii.] 

A picturesque  description,  this,  of  admirable  fairness  in  appear- 
ance— a bit  of  rhetorical  fancy,  however,  of  “putting  the  thing 
which  is  not  for  the  thing  which  is,”  that  (as  far  as  the  reports 
themselves  go)  is  without  but  a very  faint  scintilla  of  truth. 

At  the  very  most,  of  Dr.  Schurman’s  46  witnesses,  three 
churchmen  only  appeared,  merely  however  as  teachers ; they 
were  questioned  by  the  Commission  merely  on  educational  sub- 
jects. They  were  the  Dominican  rector  of  the  University  of  Manila, 
Father  Santiago  Paya,  and  two  Jesuits,  Fathers  Miguel  Saderra, 
of  the  Ateneo,  and  Pedro  Torra,  of  the  Normal  School  [ Schur- 
man, ii,  242,  278].  While,  so  far  as  we  can  judge,  all  the  other 
witnesses,  43  in  number,  were  for  the  prosecution,  nearly  all  out 
of  sympathy  for  the  defendants,  where  they  were  not  professedly 
in  open  antagonism  to  them. 

The  “ varieties  of  opinion  ” besides  that  the  Doctor  refers  to, 
seem  from  the  reports  to  have  been  little  else  than  a mass  of  un- 
clean, harsh  and  loathsome  details  regarding  Church  affairs,  and 
very  “ Maria-Monkish  ” in  looks, — anti-Catholic,  anti-Christian. 
In  this  respect  about  the  only  difference  between  the  reports  of 
the  two  Commissioners  is  that  while  Dr.  Schurman  publishes,  of 
course,  all  his  anti-friar  testimony  (without  comment,  however), 
the  Judge  all  through  seems  to  believe  it ; nay,  even  goes  out  of 
his  way  to  support  it  with  the  prestige  of  his  judicial  mantle. 
Thus,  after  traversing  some  very  foul  charges  against  Philippine 
churchmen,  he  thinks  to  account  for  their  frailty  by  saying  they 
came  to  the  islands 

“ from  the  peasant  class  in  Andalusia — ” [Taft,  28.] 

an  allusion,  by  the  way,  to  this  one-time  old  Mahometan  strong- 
hold in  Spain,  that,  like  other  neat-looking  fancies  of  rhetoric  in 
these  reports,  happens  to  have  little  or  no  foundation  in  fact. 
After  some  considerable  research  into  the  birthplaces  of  our 


ON  RELIGIO  US  AND  ED  UCA  T10NAL  MA  TTERS  1 7 


Philippine  missionaries,  we  are  able  to  affirm  that  of  all  the  Span- 
ish ecclesiastics  serving  in  those  islands  for  years  and  years  past, 
it  happens  that  there  was  one  friar  only — -a  Dominican  Father, 
that  hailed  from  Andalusia, — the  one  solitary  specimen  of  that 
much  reviled  “ peasant  class.”  By  the  way,  is  it  not  a historical 
record  that  the  ancestry  of  most  of  us  Caucasians  (the  Judge,  too, 
included)  is  traceable  to  the  farming,  or  “ peasant  class,”  of  the 
olden  times?  With  some  display  of  fair-mindedness  Judge  Taft, 
however,  appears  to  deprecate  the  general  anti-friar  tone  of  his 
native  witnesses.  Again  and  again  he  records  his  opinion  that 
neither  religion  nor  morality  was  a factor  to  be  considered  in  the 
Philippine  question.  Thus  emphatically  he  declares  it 

“ was  not  a religious  question. ” [Taft,  30.] 

Again,  that 

“ the  feeling  against  the  friars  is  solely  political.”  [/£.] 

And  still  again,  that 

‘ ‘ immorality  (of  the  friars')  was  not  the  chief  ground  for  hostility — ’ * 
[lb.,  29.] 

while,  moreover, 

“ their  immorality  as  such  (he  adds)  would  not  have  made  them  hate- 
ful to  the  people  . . . the  people  do  not  feel  any  ill  will  against 

(the  Filipino  priests)  on  this  account.”  [/Z>.] 

And  so  on  and  so  on  ; all  which  is  very  true,  as  according  to  the 
verdict  of  scholars  (reiterated,  moreover,  by  the  Judge)  no  ques- 
tion of  ethics  is  usually  entertained  by  Katipuneros,  or  people  of 
that  stamp.  And  would  it  be  out  of  place  to  inquire  why,  even  if 
true,  the  Judge  then  allowed  all  that  “irrelevant  ” testimony  to  be 
published  in  extenso — in  detail  ? Or,  in  view  of  the  grave  disedi- 
fication  resulting  therefrom,  if  the  charges  against  the  defendants 
were  false,  why,  in  the  interests  of  public  decency,  should  he  not 
have  tried  the  friar  case  in  camera  ? — a usage  not  uncommon  in 
our  courts  where  public  welfare  is  in  peril.  Or,  if  ethics  fails 
to  account  for  this  legal  phenomenon  at  Manila  of  suppressing  all 
testimony  in  favor  of  the  defendants,  while  raking  together  every- 
thing, no  matter  how  “irrelevant,”  to  their  discredit,  may  not 
mere  politics  be  considered  as  the  dominant  factor  therein  ? 


1 8 REPORTS  OF  THE  PHILIPPINE  COMMISSIONS 


But  to  return  to  our  genesis  of  the  Schurman  reports.  As  to 
the  nationality  of  his  witnesses,  who,  according  to  the  Doctor, 
“ came  in  freely  from  all  classes,”  etc.,  they  were  (he  says)  of 
various  European  and  Asiatic  races, — 

“ American,  Austrian,  Belgian,  Chinese,  English,  French,  German 
and  Spanish.”  [Schurman  2.] 

in  appearance  a rather  imposing  array  of  witnesses.  But  hardly 
to  be  borne  out  by  the  official  tally.  Of  the  names  of  the  46 
witnesses,  28  clearly  are  Spanish,  Philippine,  or  Chinese  orthogra- 
phy, thus  leaving  just  18  as  representatives  of  the  six  other  coun- 
tries in  Caucasia.  [See  the  index  in  Schur7nan , ii,  477-486.] 
Again,  we  may  remark  that  while  in  any  case  involving  local 
matters,  institutions,  etc.,  the  testimony  of  residents,  especially  if 
of  long  standing,  is,  as  a rule,  perfectly  admissible,  strangers  or 
new-comers  are  rigidly  held  as  “ incompetents.”  In  these  reports 
then  we  protest  against  the  admission  as  evidence  of  the  testimony 
or  opinions  of  United  States  civilians  or  army  or  navy  officers — all 
practically  unfamiliar  except  from  hearsay  with  matters  and  things 
transpiring  in  a very  new  country  discovered,  we  may  add,  only  a 
few  months  before.  The  first  Commission,  be  it  recalled,  began 
its  hearings  in  the  summer  of  1899.  (At  Manila,  however,  we 
are  witnessing  the  subversion  of  other  things  besides  Spanish.) 

Then  the  Doctor  goes  on  to  describe  the  business,  profession, 
etc.,  of  the  several  witnesses,  who  (he  says)  were 

“brokers,  bankers,  merchants,  lawyers,  physicians,  railroad  men, 
ship  owners,  educators,  public  officers.”  [Schurman,  i,  2.] 

— another  captivating  list  of  “ men  of  all  classes.”  But  let  us  sift 
it  in  so  far  as  Caucasians  are  concerned,  reserving  our  remarks 
on  native  witnesses — Indians,  mestizos,  and  the  like,  for  future 
comment. 

According  to  the  minutes  of  the  Court,  of  the  Caucasian  wit- 
nesses all  but  three  (the  teachers  named  ahead)  were  laymen,  and 
as  their  evidence  shows  almost  to  a man  anti-defendant,  though 
some  few,  we  admit,  were  non-committal.  Now  at  Manila,  is  it 
likely  any  more  than  elsewhere,  that  mere  civilians — men  of  affairs, 
however  keen  observers  they  may  have  been  in  matters  relating  to 
their  own  lines  of  business,  or  of  occurrences  happening  before 


ON  RELIGIO  US  AND  ED  UCA  TIONAL  MA  TTERS  1 9 


their  own  eyes, — is  it  likely  that  with  topics  relating  to  the  higher 
life — with  problems  in  religion,  philanthropy,  ethics,  pedagogy, 
mission  and  church  society  work— all  problems  for  experts — is  it 
likely  they  could  be  any  more  conversant  than  our  own  fellow  lay 
citizens  at  home  ? 

Apparently  only  the  three  “ educators  ” we  have  named  else- 
where represented  the  Church  side  of  the  Philippine  question, 
and  they  were  examined  merely  (as  said)  on  matters  associated 
with  their  profession.  In  alleging  then  that  his  witnesses  repre- 
sented “ all  classes  of  the  people,”  “ all  varieties  of  opinion,”  that, 
in  brief,  they  were  experts  in  the  various  fields  of  “ political,  civil 
and  religious  liberty,”  the  Doctor  would  have  us  believe  the  thing 
which  is  not.  As  a matter  of  fact,  though  the  churchmen  in 
priestly  orders  in  the  islands  numbered  1642,  “many  of  them 
besides  educated  gentlemen  of  high  moral  standards,”  and  usually 
“ the  only  men  of  intelligence  and  education,” — all  persons  of 
worth  and  prominence  therefore ; though,  moreover,  there  were 
hundreds  and  hundreds  of  officers-— superintendents,  teachers, 
connected  with  university,  colleges,  seminaries,  pueblo  schools  and 
beaterios, — -all  experts  in  their  respective  fields  of  instruction,  dis- 
cipline, management ; though  besides  there  were  many  hospitals, 
asylums,  orphanages,  homes,-— all  centres  one  way  or  another  of 
high-class  Christian  energy,  in  intellective,  ethical  and  religious 
spheres,  yet  with  the  exception  of  the  three  “ educators  ” named, 
no  others  were  heard  by  Dr.  Schurman ; not  a prelate,  nor 
school  teacher,  nor  superintendent,  nor  officer  of  those  numer- 
ous institutions  of  education,  beneficence  and  charity  at  Manila 
and  elsewhere  in  the  islands,  appeared  even  in  person  or  by 
proxy.12 

And  with  such  lacunae  in  the  testimony  we  are  expected  to 
take  these  reports  as  full  and  authentic  pictures  of  Philippine  soci- 
ety, life  and  manners ! What,  then,  did  Dr.  Schurman  mean 
in  alleging  that  his  witnesses  represented  “all  classes,”  “all 
opinions  ” ? 

In  plain  English,  however,  is  this  not  “putting  the  thing 
which  is  for  the  thing  which  is  not  ” ?— an  unfairness  so  obvious  as 

12  Should  any  of  these  various  experts  have  been  summoned,  or  invited  to  appear 
before  the  Schurman  Commission,  we  have  no  information  ; his  reports  being  utterly 
silent  thereon. 


20 


REPORTS  OF  THE  PHILIPPINE  COMMISSIONS 


prior  to  the  assembly  of  the  second  Commission  to  call  for  strong 
protest  on  the  part  of  the  Church  authorities  at  Manila.  Thus  we 
learn  from  Judge  Taft’s  report,  that  the  Apostolic  Delegate,  Mgr. 
Chapelle 

“ requested  that  in  any  investigation  into  the  matter  of  the  friars, 
the  provincials  of  the  orders,  and  the  five  bishops,  including 
the  archbishop  of  Manila,  who  were  all  of  them  friars,  should  be  given 
a hearing.  ’ ’ [ Taft,  24. ] 

So  defendants  in  a case  of  supreme  interest  had  to  solicit  as 
favor  what  the  law  gives  as  right ! 

Moreover,  of  the  422  pages  of  testimony  in  the  Schurman 
reports,  consisting  mainly  of  denunciations  of  friardom,  only  19 
in  all  are  allotted  to  the  evidence  of  the  three  defendants,  who 
were  questioned  solely  on  matters  relating  to  pedagogy. 

Considerable  mystery,  by  the  way,  seems  to  veil  the  compila- 
tion of  these  reports.  Judge  Taft,  in  describing  the  mode  of  pro- 
cedure followed  by  his  fellow  commissioners,  states  that 

“ much  formal  evidence  was  taken  and  transcribed,  but  more  was 
gathered  from  informal  conversation  when  no  stenographer  was 
present.”  \Taft,  15.] 

An  admission  that  seems  to  mean  a great  deal  more  than  it 
looks.  So  this  is  the  way  law  was  interpreted  at  Manila,  and 
problems  of  the  highest  interest  determined  “ from  informal  con- 
versation,” gathered,  too,  when  “ no  stenographer  was  present ! ” 

But  there  are  conundrums,  not  a few,  that  meet  us  in  our 
study  of  these  and  similar  vagaries  of  judicialism  at  Manila — the 
court  proceedings  of  A.  D.  1899-1900— gleams  of  such  steady 
and  unrelieved  one-sidedness  throughout  that  we  cannot  but 
return  to  the  belief  grounded  on  our  analysis  of  these  legal  forms, 
that  by  some  skilful  pre-arrangement  (formerly  known  as  “ hocus- 
pocus” — a very  ancient  legal  technicality),  the  reports  of  the 
Commissioners  were  to  be  “ drawn  up,  of  course  according  to  the 
evidence,”  unless  it  might  seem  advisable  (such  things  do  at  times 
happen) — to  have  the  evidence  somehow  or  other  correspond 
with  the  reports.  Such  idiosyncrasies,  we  have  heard,  are  among 
the  mysteries  and  intricacies  of  modern  law. 

The  witnesses  that  appeared  before  Judge  Taft  numbered,  as  said, 
twelve.  But  from  a study  of  his  reports  we  find  that  some  200  or 


ON  RELIGIO  US  AND  ED  UCA  TIONAL  MA  TTERS  2 1 


300  others — all  natives,  it  seems,  of  Luzon,  and  strong  for  the  prose- 
cution, appeared  before  his  Commission  by  deposition.  Thus  there 
is  a paper  signed  by  97  “ headmen 13  and  leading  residents”  of 
Aringay  in  Union  province  [Sen.  Doc.,  198],  another  presented  by 
“ Clemente  Mapuraya  and  72  others,”  14  the  “ presidente,  coun- 
sellors and  inhabitants  ” of  Pamplona  in  Cagayan  province  [Id., 
220],  a third  from  “ Sofio  Alemdt  and  others  . . . leading 

men  and  residents”  of  Tayabas  [Id.,  224],  and  a fourth  with  84 
signatures  from  Nueva  Caceres  [Id.,  225]. 

A word  merely  about  these  “ headmen  and  leading  residents  ” 
of  Luzon,  all  Indians,  or  mestizos.  From  their  depositions,  it 
appears  (as  already  said)  that  through  and  through  they  were  to 
a man  all  strong  anti-defendants,  in  every  way,  even  if  not,  as  may 
be  deduced  from  their  language,  anti-Christian  also,  just  the  kind 
of  people  too,  I suppose,  that  Judge  Taft  has  so  frequently  char- 
acterized as  “ ignorant,”  “ credulous,”  “ uneducated,”  etc.  How- 
ever, as  witnesses  against  the  defendants  they  seemed  to  have  been 
rated  among  the  “ competent,”  as  on  their  evidence,  in  part,  the 
Judge  has  based  his  report,  though  it  is  hard  to  understand  why 
elsewhere  he  should  seek  to  discredit  his  own  tools. 

We  go  back  again  to  our  Caucasian  witnesses  for  the  defence, 
— defendants  themselves,  fourteen  in  all,  counting  the  two  pedago- 
gical experts  (as  said)  who  appeared  before  the  two  Commissions 
twice. 

Before  Judge  Taft  appeared  the  following  eleven  defendants: 
Santiago  Paya,  provincial  of  the  Dominicans ; 15  Juan  Villegas, 
provincial  of  the  Franciscans ; Jose  Lobo,  provincial  of  the  Augus- 
tinians ; Francisco  Araya,  provincial  of  the  Recoletos;  Alfonso 
Maria  de  Morertin,  superior  of  the  Capuchins;  Juan  Sabater, 
superior  of  the  Benedictines ; Miguel  Saderra  y Mata,  vicar  supe- 
rior of  the  Jesuits ; superior  of  the  Lazarists  (name  not  recorded) ; 
Bernardino  Nozaleda  y Villa,  O.S.D.,  Archbishop  of  Manila; 
Andres  Ferrero,  Recoleto  Bishop  of  Santa  Isabel  of  Jaro;  the 

13  The  headman  = cabefa  de  barangay,  was  a petty  Indian  chieftain,  head  of  a 
settlement,  or  pueblo,  of  about  one  hundred  families.  The  “ leading  residents,” 
very  likely,  were  his  subjects. 

u There  is  no  entry  to  show  the  domicile  of  Mapuraya,  and  associates,  likely 
Luzonians,  however,  as  were  the  others. 

15  Fathers  Paya  and  Saderra  had  appeared  as  witnesses  before  the  first  Commis- 


22  REPORTS  OF  THE  PHILIPPINE  COMMISSIONS 

Bishop  of  Vigan  (name  not  recorded).  The  evidence  given  by 
these  church  representatives  is  in  Sen.  Doc.  [47-133]. 

That  they  were  persons  of  considerable  importance  in  eccle- 
siastical and  civil  fields  we  have  these  admissions  of  Judge  Taft, 
who,  besides  styling  them  “ educated  gentlemen  of  high  moral 
standards,”  states  that 

‘ ‘ the  priest  was  not  only  the  spiritual  guide  (of  the  Philippines),  but 
that  he  was  in  every  sense  the  municipal  ruler.”  \Taft,  26.] 

‘ ‘ The  truth  is  (he  goes  on  to  say ) that  the  whole  government  of  Spain 
in  these  islands  rested  on  the  friars.”  [/^.] 

Eulogy  enough,  we  may  add,  but  not  wholly  warranted  by 
either  facts  or  history.  The  Judge,  in  attributing  Mikado-like 
prerogatives  and  powers  to  Philippine  churchmen,  runs  counter  to 
historical  records  of  the  last  one  hundred  years  or  so. 

Chronicles  of  those  islands,  state-papers  of  Governors-general, 
etc.,  refer  continually  to  conflicts  of  power  between  the  missiona- 
ries and  the  bureaucrats  of  Manila  and  Madrid, — the  latter  a 
hungry  horde  of  civilians  in  alliance  with  Free  Masons,  Liberales, 
then  Liga  members  and  Katipuneros.  The  one  doing  their  best 
to  shield  the  natives  from  pillage,  extortion,  tyranny  on  the  part 
of  native  alcaldes  and  Spanish  officialdom,— -the  bane  at  times  of 
our  own  Indian  missions  ; the  others  just  as  intent  in  filling  their 
pockets,  as  also  at  times  is  done  by  some  of  our  own  syndicates 
of  money-seekers  masquerading  too  often  as  philanthropists. 
Thus  it  was  in  the  Philippines.  Has  the  Judge  never  read  of  the 
“hemp  trust”  and  “tobacco  trust”  engineered  at  Madrid  in  order 
to  “bleed  ” the  natives  of  Panay  and  Cagayan? 

At  Washington  in  the  Library  of  Congress  is  a work  of  the 
Madrid  press  more  than  half  a century  old,  that,  with  details  in 
plenty  relating  to  the  olden  time,  shows  up  the  sharp  dealings  of 
Caucasian  exploiters  in  Luzon,  Panay,  Cebu,  and  other  islands, 
during  the  last  century  and  even  earlier.16  Here  is  merely  one 
instance  of  many  recorded  in  our  Diccionario  of  State  interference 
with  Church  matters  to  the  great  distress  of  souls.  In  1831  (Au- 

16  See  Diccionario  Geographico,  Estadistico,  Histdrico  de  las  Philipinas,  etc., 
[Madrid,  1850,  in  two  vols.]  by  two  Augustinian  scientists,  Manuel  Buzeta  and 
Felipe  Bravo.  Then,  too,  should  be  studied  the  Estadismo  of  that  brave  assailant  of 
crown  villainies  in  the  Philippines, — the  Augustinian  traveller  and  chronicler  Zuniga. 
[Retanaed.,  Madrid,  1893.] 


ON  RELIGIO US  AND  ED UCA  TIONAL  MA  TTERS  2 3 


gust  25),  Sanctos  Gomez  Maranon,  Augustinian,  Bishop  of  Cebu 
—head  city  of  the  Visayas,  petitioned  Ferdinand  VII  of  Spain 
(and  patrono  real ) for  a division  of  his  see,  which  (the  Bishop 
stated)  covered  an  immense  area  of  countless  islands  and  waters 
reaching  all  through  the  Visayas,  then  eastwardly  as  far  as  the 
Marianas.  His  plea  was  based  on  the  clear  fact  that  the  greater 
number  of  souls  in  his  care  could  never  be  visited  by  him, —could 
not  be  confirmed  through  Holy  Chrism. 

Among  other  arguments  in  support  of  his  plea,  the  Bishop 
relates  that  right  after  his  consecration,  he  visited  the  isle  of 
Romblon,  and  three  provinces  in  Panay,  where  he  confirmed 
102,636  Christians;  thence  to  the  isle  of  Negros,  then  back  to 
Cebu,  where  in  one-half  only  of  that  island  he  confirmed  (those 
of  Panay  included)  23,800  souls,  though  it  took  him  one-half 
year  for  the  task.  Moreover,  he  pleads  that  his  charge  embraced 
a million  at  least  of  souls,  scattered  through  many  islands,  of 
which  he  names  only  the  larger,  Romblon,  Samar,  Leyte,  Bohol, 
Surigao,  Negros,  Tablas,  Sibuyan,  Banton,  Panay,  and  Cebu. 

He  prays  then  that  a see  be  established  with  headquarters  at 
the  city  of  Santa  Isabel  of  Jaro,  in  Panay  isle,  with  care,  too,  of 
the  Calamianes  and  Zamboanga  in  Mindanao — two  regions  that 
with  the  Marianas  he  had  never  been  able  to  visit.  This  petition 
to  the  crown  was  in  1831.  But  Santa  Isabel  witnessed  no  bishop 
of  its  own  until  thirty-four  years  later,  when  (on  May  27,  1865), 
the  then  Sovereign  Pontiff,  Pius  IX,  created  that  see.17 

With  such  shilly-shallying  at  court  one  need  feel  little  sur- 
prise at  the  fact  that  for  one  hundred  years  or  so  the  welfare  of 
Christian  missions  in  the  East  as  well  as  elsewhere  depended 
largely  on  the  whims  of  bureaucrats  at  Madrid,  who  (at  Lisbon 
as  well)  were  apt  to  be  in  continual  conflict  with  the  Holy  See  on 
many  a question  of  etiquette,  etc.,  among  them  church  prefer- 
ments, benefices,  and  the  like. 

No.  In  the  many  statements  of  Judge  Taft,  that  up  to  late 
times  churchmen  held  “ supreme  power  ” in  the  Philippines,  lies  a 
grave  blunder  against  history.  Once,  yes,  many,  many  years 
ago,  up  to  the  close  of  about  the  eighteenth  century,  when  the 
Church  was  in  friendly  alliance  with  Caesar  in  spirituals  and  tem- 

17  For  the  plea  in  full  of  Bishop  Maran6n,  see  Buzeta-Bravo,  ut  ante  [i,  543, 
544]- 


24  REPORTS  OF  THE  PHILIPPINE  COMMISSIONS 


porals,  then,  perhaps,  you  would  have  seen  the  pueblo-missions  of 
Luzon  and  its  sister-isles  civilized,  prosperous,  happy,  so  well  as 
to  deserve  the  epithet  “ Pearl  of  Malaysia  a picture  of  almost 
Utopian  grandeur  and  ethic  beauty,  as  was  that  other  charming 
lovely  Christian  mission-field  of  the  Jesuits  in  Paraguay. 

Some  Facts  of  Philippine  Story. 

Here,  relative  to  old-time  Philippine  story,  are  a few  facts  that 
have  been  enshrined  in  the  pages  of  many  a chronicler. 

1.  As  a rule,  not  a Spanish  soldier  in  the  Philippines,  except 
maybe  in  Manila  in  garrison. 

2.  At  no  time  had  Spain  over  5,000  peninsulars  in  the  whole 
archipelago. 

3.  All  the  islands  were  policed  by  Indians — natives,  under 
friars,  who  guarded  them  from  Chinese  pirates  and  Moros. 

The  writer  opines  that  even  yet  Cebuans  remember  with  lov- 
ing reverence  their  heroic  fighting  missionary  of  three-quarters  of 
a century  ago,  Julian  Bermejo,18  of  the  Augustinians,  who,  with 
his  well-drilled  corps  of  Indians,  spearmen  and  bowmen,  with  his 
little  fleet  of  ten  armored  barangayanes — a kind  of  war  canoe, 
supplied  with  falconets,  and  even  with  a well-equipped  signal-ser- 
vice (with  telegraphs  from  village  to  village)  along  the  coast,  kept 
Visaya  waters  fairly  clear  of  Mahometan  Jolo  corsairs.  (Father 
Bermejo,  who  off  and  on  was  cur  a of  several  pueblos  in  Cebu  from 
1802  to  1848,  died  at  Cebu  in  1851,  on  April  30.) 

4.  Apart  from  the  usual  local  outbreaks,  generally  in  Tagal- 
dom  (some  of  them  fierce  enough),  history  shows  an  era  almost 
unbroken  of  peace  and  comfort. 

5.  Everywhere  in  those  islands  for  generations  back  to  the 
re-discovery,  schools  sufficient  in  number  for  plain  and  forest 
natives. 

6.  Steadily  without  a break  the  population  of  the  islands  on 
the  increase  from  the  first  general  census  in  1732  down. 

Such  are  storied  facts,  all  of  public  record,  that  it  may  be  use- 

18  Wrongly  named  “Ruiz”  in  his  otherwise  manly  and  enthusiastic  paper  in 
defence  of  Philippine  churchmen,  “The  Work  of  the  Friars,”  by  Stephen  Bonsai, 
in  North  American  Review  for  October,  last  year.  [See  pp.  449-460.]  Mr.  Bon- 
sai’s paper  was  republished  a few  months  ago  by  the  “ International  Catholic  Truth 
Society,”  of  New  York. 


ON  RELIGIO  US  A ND  ED  UCA  TIONA  L MA  TTERS  2 5 


ful  to  consider  in  our  study  of  Philippine  problems.  With  money- 
grabbers  and  Voltaireans  kept  aloof  from  our  Indians,  they  were 
fairly  comfortable  and  happy,  with  their  friar  guardians  as  pioneers 
in  the  field  of  higher  and  nobler  activities,  as  promoters  of  civi- 
lization, industries,  arts,  as  upholders  of  law  and  order,  of  mission- 
churches,  schools, — the  self-same  factors,  in  brief,  who,  with  their 
advent  to  Malaysia  in  the  sixteenth  century,  had  borne  thither 
with  the  blessings  of  spiritual  Christian  refinement  the  boons  of 
material  art  also, — letters,  trades,  commerce. 

But  to  conclude  with  this  bit  of  philosophic  analysis  of  our 
Commissioners’  reports.  We  are  told  by  the  Doctor  that  in  their 
solemn  judicial  assembly  at  Manila 

‘ ‘ Every  witness  said  what  he  wanted  to,  and  the  Commission  cor- 
dially invited  all  kinds  of  witnesses  to  appear.”19  [Schurman,  ii, 
vii.] — 

a statement  implying,  as  the  reader  will  notice,  utmost  license  of 
speech  on  the  part  of  the  witnesses  for  the  prosecution.  They 
certainly  seem  to  have  gone  beyond  bounds.  One  of  them,  with 
almost  flippant  air,  has  even  proclaimed  the  infamy  of  his  own 
mother.  [Don  Felipe  Calderon  in  Sen.  Doc.,  1 39.]  Others  simi- 
larly speak  to  the  dishonor  of  their  own  friends  and  relatives. 

Yes.  We  can  well  believe  that  in  this  regard  Dr.  Schurman 
speaks  truly— -that  “ every  witness  said  what  he  wanted.”  But  in 
our  Manila  court  was  there  no  one — no  officer  then  to  call  wit- 
nesses to  order,  to  have  them  bridle  their  speech  ? 

With  this  we  close  our  sketch  of  the  genesis  of  the  two  Com- 
missions, and  the  mode  of  procedure  observed  by  them, 

“in  the  maintenance  of  order,  peace,  and  public  welfare,”  etc. 

[ Schurman , i,  186.] 


Preliminary  Conclusions. 

Preliminary  to  our  conclusions  thereon  we  think  then  the  fol- 
lowing points  (inspired  by  these  reports)  have  been  proved,  viz. : 
that  as  regards  the  defendants — 

19  Notice  may  here  be  taken  of  Dr.  Schurman’ s fondness  for  broad  and  very  in- 
definite generalizations,  as  “ men  of  all  classes,”  “all  classes  of  the  people,”  “all 
varieties  of  opinion,”  “all  the  great  questions  of  the  day,”  and  “every  witness  said 
what  he  wanted  to,”  etc.  But  does  such  use  of  “ indefinites  ” accord  fully  with 
historical  accuracy  ? 


26  REPORTS  OF  THE  PHILIPPINE  COMMISSIONS 


1.  The  field  of  testimony  opened  by  the  prosecution  was  prac- 
tically unlimited. 

2.  The  witnesses  with  the  exception  of  fourteen,  but  in  reality 
twelve,  were  many  of  them  of  the  mere  riff-raff  of  Manila,  the 
most  cosmopolitan  city,  it  may  be  said,  of  Asia,  if  not  of  the  world. 

3.  No  testimony  was  barred,  everything — hearsay,  town- 
gossip,  slander — all  was  admitted. 

4.  There  was  no  proper  representation  for  the  defence. 

5.  No  provision  for  the  verification  of  “ evidence.” 

6.  None  for  cross-examination. 

7.  While  some  of  the  judges  at  least  were  on  record  as  anti- 
defendants,—the  whole  proceeding  therefore  one  of  such  legal 
unseemliness  it  would  seem  as  in  any  court  of  review  would  inevi- 
tably call  for  rebuke,  if  not  reversal  of  judgment. 

APPENDIX. 

Among  the  many  very  singular  phenomena  in  the  four  volumes 
of  the  Philippine  reports  that  merit  special  study  we  single  out  the 
following  as  of  interest  to  our  readers.  They  refer  to— 

1.  The  interrogatories  employed  by  the  Commissioners  in 
their  examination  of  native  witnesses. 

2.  Character  of  native  witnesses  as  described  by  their  fellow- 
prosecutors. 

3.  School  facilities  and  school  work  in  the  Philippines,  etc. 

Interrogatories  Put  to  Native  Witnesses. 

As  to  the  questions  put  by  the  second  Commission  to  native 
witnesses  we  are  told  that  they  were  determined  by  the  Commis- 
sion itself  [Sen.  Doc.,  255],  though  prepared  by  Judge  Taft  [id., 
19 7],  then  published  in  the  Manila  papers,  besides  being  com- 
municated to  the  witnesses  in  written  or  printed  from.  [Id.,  192 
212.] 

The  questions,  nineteen  in  number,  were  the  following : 20 

1.  How  long  have  you  lived  in  the  Philippines  ? 

2.  In  what  parts  of  the  islands  have  you  lived  ? 

3.  How  much  personal  opportunity  had  you  before  1896  to 
observe  the  relations  existing  between  the  friars  and  the  people  of 
their  parishes  in  a religious,  in  a social,  and  in  a political  way  ? 

50  In  Sen.  Doc.,  2 13-2 19,  the  questions  are  given  in  detail. 


ON  RELIGIOUS  AND  EDUCATIONAL  MATTERS  27 


4.  How  many  friars  have  you  known  personally  ? 

5.  From  what  class  of  society  were  they  drawn  in -Spain  ? 

6.  What  agricultural,  or  business,  or  residence  property,  in  any 
part  of  the  islands  do  you  know  from  which  any  order  of  friars  has 
derived  income  ? 

7 . What  political  functions  were  actually  exercised  by  the  parish 
priests  in  the  islands  under  Spanish  rule  ? 

8.  What  usually  were  the  relations  between  the  heads  of  the 
Spanish  Government  here  and  the  heads  of  the  Church  ? 

9.  What  fees  were  actually,  collected  by  the  parish  priests  for 
marriages,  burials,  and  christenings?  How  were  they  fixed,  if  you 
know  ? What,  if  any,  was  the  effect  of  such  fees  upon  the  marriages  ? 

10.  What  was  the  morality  of  the  friars  as  parish  priests?  How 
much  opportunity  have  you  had  to  observe  ? Can  you  give  me  in- 
stances ? If  so,  please  do  so. 

1 1 . What  do  you  think  is  the  chief  ground  for  hostility  to  the 
friars  as  parish  priests  ? Does  it  exist  against  all  the  orders  ? Why 
the  difference  ? 

12.  Charges  have  been  made  against  the  friars  that  many  of  their 
number  have  caused  the  deportation  of  Filipinos,  members  of  their 
parishes,  and  that  in  some  instances  they  were  guilty  of  physical 
cruelty.  What,  if  anything,  do  you  know  on  the  subject  ? 

1 3 . What  is  to  be  said  of  the  morality  of  the  native  priests  ? 

14.  What  as  to  their  education  and  preparation  to  discharge 
clerical  duties  ? 

15.  What  do  you  think  would  be  the  result  of  an  attempt  of  the 
friars  to  return  to  their  parishes  ? 

16.  What  do  you  think  would  be  the  effect  in  the  islands  of  the 
appointment  of  an  American  archbishop  ? 

17.  What  do  you  think  of  the  establishment  of  schools  in  which 
opportunity  would  be  given  the  ministers  of  any  church  to  instruct 
the  pupils  in  religion  half  an  hour  before  the  regular  hour?  Would 
this  satisfy  the  Catholics  of  the  islands  in  their  desire  to  unite  religion 
with  education  ? 

18.  Will  not  the  fact  that  parish  priests,  whoever  they  may  be, 
will  have  no  political  functions,  and  no  political  influence,  and  must 
depend  on  the  voluntary  contributions  of  their  parishioners  for  their 
support,  very  much  change  the  relation  of  the  priest  to  the  people  ? 

19.  What  do  you  think  would  be  the  effect  of  the  Government 
expropriating  the  agricultural  property  justly  belonging  to  the  friars, 
paying  what  it  is  worth,  selling  it  out  in  small  parcels,  and  using  the 
proceeds  for  a school  fund  ? 

Such,  then,  were  the  problems  in  various  realms  of  science — ■ 
in  political  economy,  pedagogy,  state-craft,  etc.,  submitted  to  the 
native  witnesses  for  solution — conundrums,  the  most  of  them,  that 
might  easily  puzzle  scholarly  Caucasians,  not  to  speak  of  an 
“ignorant,  credulous,  and  childlike  people,”  as  Judge  Taft  has 
termed  the  inhabitants  of  the  Philippines. 


28  REPORTS  OF  THE  PHILIPPINE  COMMISSIONS 

The  reader  will  recall,  moreover,  that,  according  to  the  Judge’s 
very  emphatic  declaration,  the  Philippine  question  was  not  “ re- 
ligious,” but  “merely  political;”  that  “immorality,”  etc.,  was 
not  concerned  therein.  Then,  perhaps,  in  view  of  this  deliberate 
oft-repeated  protestation  of  the  Judge,  he  will  inquire,  why  should 
the  Judge,  when  framing  these  interrogatories,  have  put  into  the 
heads  of  his  friar-hating  witnesses— Caucasian  and  Katipuneros — 
the  very  subjects  even  that  he  so  steadily,  so  positively,  had  de- 
clared were  “ irrelevant  ” ? Why,  too,  have  paraded  their  answers  ? 
Was  this  movement,  as  well  as  others,  decreed  by  the  secret  anti- 
Catholic  propaganda  of  Manila,  or  maybe  London  ? Katipuneros, 
it  may  be  remarked,  are  members  of  a secret  league  in  the  Phil- 
ippines, chiefly  in  Luzon,  patterned  on  Masonic  models.  Herein, 
not  very  unlike  other  anti-Christian  organizations,  they  are  not 
apt  to  let  such  things  as  morals  or  church  discipline  trouble  their 
conscience.  Nor  have  Katipuneros  ever  been  noted  as  steady 
church-goers  any  more  than  their  white  brethren  of  secret-society 
lodges  in  America  and  Europe. 

Native  or  Mestizo  Witnesses. 

An  important  feature  in  these  reports,  as  observed  when  mak- 
ing our  analysis  thereof,  was  the  fact  that  the  testimony  of  native 
or  mestizo  witnesses  served  largely  as  their  basis. 

We  give  here  some  select  tributes  to  their  worthlessness  as 
citizens,  men  of  business,  etc. 

Our  quotations,  the  reader  is  to  observe  very  closely,  are  not 
drawn  from  Spanish  sources.  They  are  taken  from  the  testimony 
of  the  Commissioners’  own  Caucasian  witnesses — anti-friars  on 
the  whole,  the  same  as  these  natives.  Following  are  several 
characterizations : 

“ The  Chinese  half-breeds  are  causing  all  the  trouble.”  [Testi- 
mony of  Edwin  H.  Warner,  Schurman , ii,  19.] 

“ The  disturbing  element  is  really  of  mixed  blood — the  Chinese, 
and  Japanese,  and  Tagalogs.  . . . You  can’t  conceive  of  a 

people  where  there  is  a worse  mixture.”  [Test,  of  Neil  McLeod,  id., 
h,  41*] 

“.  . . the  worst  race  . . . the  Chinese  mestizo  or  half- 

caste  . . . treacherous  and  unreliable,  but  they  are  smart  . . . 

cunning.”  [Test,  of  Wm.  A.  Daland,  id.,  ii,  167.] 


ON  RELIGIO US  AND  ED  UCA  TIONAL  MA  TTERS  29 


“ There  is  no  business  morality  among  them  (the  Chinese')  . . . 
the  mestizos  ...  are  very  tricky;  you  can’t  put  much  confi- 
dence in  them.”  [Test,  of  R.  W.  Brown,  id.,  ii,  205,.] 

. . the  mestizo  ...  is  a bad  lot  right  through.” 

[Test,  of  H.  D.  C.  Jones,  id.,  ii,  216.] 

“ Usually  he  (the  mestizo)  is  a very  mean  sort  of  a man.”  [Test, 
of  Edwin  H.  Warner,  id.,  ii,  199.] 

Even  the  Judge  himself  makes  this  admission  that 

“the  number  of  Filipinos  who  are  fitted  by  nature,  education,  and 
moral  stability  to  fill  such  (Judicial)  positions  is  very  small.  Very 
few  can  be  found  among  them  in  whose  integrity  and  ability  business 
men  have  confidence.”  [ Taft,  83.] 

While  the  genial,  upright  describer  of  the  Philippines,  Mr. 
Sawyer,  a resident  there  for  fourteen  years,  employs  these  terms : 

“ I should  not  like  to  place  (he  says)  my  affairs  in  the  hands  of  a 
Tagal  lawyer,  to  trust  my  life  in  the  hands  of  a Tagal  doctor,  nor  to 
purchase  an  estate  on  the  faith  of  a Tagal  surveyor’s  measure- 
ment.” al 

Thus  has  one  half  of  the  prosecution’s  own  witnesses,  we  may 
say,  spoken  against  the  other  half.  The  friars  in  the  Philippines 
have  been  styled  “an  element  of  discord.”  But  do  the  above 
gems  of  high-class  anthropology — science  of  our  fellow  man — 
display  any  marked  degree  of  harmony  among  the  anti-defendants 
themselves  ?1 

Another  point  as  to  these  friar-hating  Malays — their  testi- 
mony, which  was  accepted  as  legal  and  competent  by  our  Com- 
missioners. All  through  the  evidence  of  these  Filipinos — natives, 
half-breeds,  or  Chinese  (given  by  both  Commissioners  in  their 
reports),  runs  one  continued  strain  of  invective,  obloquy,  slander, 
against  their  former  teachers  and  missionaries, — on  the  whole  a 
parrot-like  repetition,  page  after  page,  of  street  tales,  gossip  and 
hearsay,  relating  to  what  we  may  style  the  “ Maria-Monk  ” kind 
of  romances  about  “the  secret  life  of  churchmen,”  “church 
tariff  extortions,”  “abuse  of  confessional  secrets,”  etc.,  etc.  Yet 
from  this  wearisome  and  long-spun-out  sameness  of  language,  in 

21  The  Inhabitants  of  the  Philippines,  by  Frederic  H.  Sawyer,  etc. , New  York, 
1900  (p.  237),  a book  well  worth  reading  for  its  keen  observations  of  matters  and 
things  in  general  in  those  islands. 


30  REPORTS  OF  THE  PHILIPPINE  COMMISSIONS 


their  testimony,  the  student,  if  he  examines  it  closely,  will  note 
two  very  remarkable  psychological  phenomena,  that  will  prove 
incentives  to  considerable  reflection  thereon.  One  is  the  fact  that 
apparently  through  some  singular  secret  and  mysterious  influence 
these  “ ignorant,  uneducated  ” hillsmen  and  plainsmen  of  Luzon 
all  have  employed  almost  the  very  same  turns  of  thought,  the 
very  same  figures  of  speech,  the  very  same  references  to  past 
events,  even  of  ages  ago,  and  so  on.  [See  Sen.  Doc.  for  the  testi- 
mony of  these  native  witnesses  from  Felipe  Calderon’s,  p.  133,  to 
Francisco  Alvarez’s,  p.  265.]  One  somewhat  amusing  instance  of 
this  peculiar  “thought  coincidence,”  as  we  may  call  it,  is  the 
reference  by  as  many  as  eight  native  witnesses,  among  them  our 
“ headmen  and  leading  residents  ” of  Aringay,  to  the  case  of 
Archbishop  Sancho  in  the  eighteenth  century.22 

The  experience  of  this  prelate— Basilio  Sancho  de  Santa  J usta 
y Rufina,  an  Aragonese,  member  of  the  Pious  Schools,  and  for 
twenty  years  Archbishop  of  Manila,  from  1767  to  1787,  when  he 
died,  has  so  far  sufficed  for  his  successors  in  that  see. 

Through  a fancy  that  hitherto  native  talents  had  somehow 
wrongly  been  kept  hidden,  the  Archbishop,  who,  when  in  Spain, 
had  displayed  great  activity  in  the  suppression  of  Jesuits — (it  was 
the  era  of  the  new  infidel  re-birth  [?]  of  Europe)— withdrew  all 
regulars  in  the  Philippines  from  parish  care,  and  gave  their  charges 
to  native  incumbents.  These  Indians  were  ordained  by  him  in 
such  numbers  as  to  give  rise  to  a saying  at  Manila  that 

‘ ‘ Que  no  se  encontraban  bogadores  para  bos  pancos,  porque  a totos  los 
habia  ordenado  el  arzobispo,  ’ ’ 

— “ One  need  not  look  any  longer  for  boatmen,  as  the  Archbishop 
has  ordained  them  all.”  With  this  result  in  brief,  as  to  his  cha- 
grin the  Archbishop  discovered  shortly  after  while  on  a visit 
throughout  Luzon,  that  the  missions  had  gone  to  wreck  and  ruin 
—churches,  schools,  conventos,  libraries,  all  in  decay. 

Not  long  after,  the  European  regulars  were  restored  to  their 
former  duties  as  parrocos,  with  the  natives  as  formerly  coadjutors.23 

22  See  in  Sen.  Doc.  the  testimony  of  the  following  : Torres,  1 86  ; Ros,  194  ; the 
Aringay  delegation,  200;  Templo,  208;  del  Fierro,  214;  Mercado,  251  ; Mijares, 
542;  Alvarez,  258. 

23  Sketches  of  this  era  may  be  read  in  Estadismo  ( ut  supra),  by  the  Augustinian 
Zuniga,  [Retana  ed,  ii,  279].  It  is  referred  to  also  by  Buzeta-Bravo — Diccionario 
[ii,  278  *]. 


ON  RELIGIO  US  AND  ED  UCA  TIONAL  MA  TTERS  3 1 


Could  it  be  possible,  then,  and  yet  nothing  easier  might  have 
happened,  that  all  these  Katipuneros  (Caucasians  even  included) 
were  carefully  drilled  beforehand  as  to  their  anti-friar  evidence— 
were  in  brief  “ coached,”  though  rather  stupidly,  as  sometimes 
our  court  chronicles  declare  is  done  here  ? 

The  other  psychological  phenomenon  discloses  to  us  on  anal- 
ysis a no  less  singular  instance  of  what  I might  style,  in  default  of 
perhaps  a neater  term,  “thought  transference,”  or  “psychical 
absorption.”  The  reports  of  Judge  Taft  contain  the  testimony  of 
several  Luzonians,  wherein,  interlarded  with  their  anti-friar  evi- 
dence, are  some  pure  Americanisms,  such  as  the  semi-slang  ex- 
pression “ O.  K.,”  that  exceedingly  quickly,  it  appears,  had  been 
introduced  by  these  Filipinos  into  their  native  speech  after  an  ac- 
quaintanceship with  Americans  of  only  a few  months.  The  “ O.K.” 
enters  into  the  testimony  of  at  least  four  islanders.24  Or,  maybe 
— an  explanation  that  will  suggest  itself  to  our  mind — maybe 
the  testimony  itself  of  these  uncultured  folk  was  just  “cooked.” 
Enough,  however,  for  these  native  witnesses,  who  seem  therein 
something  like  our  own  half-breeds  at  home,  of  various  colors,  the 
same  as  in  Malaysia. 

Long  ago  European  churchmen  in  the  Philippines  were  not 
slow  in  learning  of  the  character  of  those  islanders,  that  among 
racial  peculiarities  they  were  given  to  many  virtues — to  piety, 
devotion,  obedience,  and  in  subordinate  positions  even  trustworthi- 
ness. Herein,  I may  observe,  they  are  not  very  unlike  our  own 
North  American  Indians.  But  the  churchmen  learned  besides 
that  their  wards,  however  docile  and  really  faithful,  were  apt  to 
get  “ out  of  gear  ” with  any  regular  system  of  life,  to  show  them- 
selves flighty-minded,  changeable,  when  one  would  least  expect  it. 

So  as  the  Church  has  always  recognized  the  advantages  of  hav- 
ing a native  clergy,  co-workers  with  Europeans  on  missionary  lines, 
these  natives,  little  by  little,  were  raised  to  sacred  orders,  as  assist- 
ants, coadjutors,  under  the  eye,  however,  of  a Spaniard,  to  preach, 
instruct,  visit  the  sick,  and  administer  the  Sacraments  of  Holy 
Church.  But  as  a rule  natives  were  not  admitted  to  higher  offices. 
The  experience  of  Archbishop  Sancho  was  a lesson  for  good. 
Nor  was  any  native  ever  raised  to  the  episcopate,  unless  at  the 

24  See  in  Sen.  Doc.  for  the  “ O.  K.”  the  testimony  of  Tavera,  159  bis. ; Templo, 
205  ; Mercado,  250  ; Alvarez,  256. 


32  REPORTS  OF  THE  PHILIPPINE  COMMISSIONS 


most  as  coadjutor.  Nor,  for  similar  reasons  too,  did  the  orders  in 
all  these  centuries  admit  natives  to  the  habit  of  their  brotherhood 
but  rarely.  Since  the  year  1641,  as  far  as  I can  discover,  the 
Augustinians  have  invested  with  their  religious  garb  only  43  In- 
dians, among  them  the  skilled  botanist,  Father  Ignacio  Mercado, 
a mestizo  of  Parariaque  (bom  in  1648,  died  at  Bauan  in  1698), 
Dominicans,  25  ; Franciscans,  16 ; Recoletos,  about  25. 


Pueblo  Schools  in  the  Philippines,  etc. 

Common  schools  for  Indians  were  established,  of  record,  in 
every  Christianized  district  of  these  vast  archipelagos,  as  adjuncts 
to  their  pueblo  churches-— feeders,  too,  in  a way  of  the  many  insti- 
tutions of  higher  learning  already  named  in  these  pages-— colleges, 
seminaries,  heaterios.  Let  the  reader  recall  the  words  of  Judge 
Taft  in  speaking  of  the  chief  inspectors  and  superintendents  of 
these  little  pueblo  shrines  of  the  Christian  Minerva,  that  the 
priests,  “ men  of  intelligence  and  education,”  were  “ many  of  them 
gentlemen  of  high  moral  standards.” 

As  to  the  mass  of  literature,  too,  in  the  Philippines  bearing  on 
the  higher  sciences,  industries  and  arts,  these  are  noted  in  the 
Commissioners’  reports  only  by  their  utterly  unexplainable 
absence.  Neither  Dr.  Schurman,  nor  J udge  Taft,  seems  to  have  been 
acquainted  with  Philippine  bibliography,  even  by  name,  or  aware 
even  faintly  of  the  many  gems  of  literature  in  those  islands  in  such 
diverse  fields  as  history  and  mechanics,  linguistics  and  music,  the- 
ology and  physics,  with  a lot  more  on  poetry,  folk-lore,  and  so  on. 
This  absence  of  one  of  the  brilliant  intellectual  glories  of  the  Philip- 
pines (in  the  Commissioners’  reports)  is  another  of  the  several 
lacunae  noticed  in  their  works. 

Nor  do  they  seem  to  have  been  aware  of  this  other  fact  that 
during  the  closing  years  of  the  sixteenth  century,  when  the  earli- 
est printing-press  of  record  in  the  Philippines  was  set  up  in  Luzon, 
Manila  hailed  its  first  publication,  not  (as  believed  by  many)  the 
Tagal  Arte  of  the  Dominican  philologist  Blancas,  in  1602,  nor  the 
tratadillos  that  issued  from  the  convent-press  of  the  Augustinians 
at  Lubao  in  1606,  but  two  booklets  instead  on  Christian  Doctrine, 
— Doctrinas , as  they  were  entitled,  one  in  Tagal  and  Spanish,  the 
other  in  Chinese,  both  printed,  or  rather  xylographed,  from 


ON  RELIGIO  US  AND  ED  UCA  TIONAL  MA  TTERS  3 3 


blocks,  at  Manila,  or  its  suburb,  Binondo,  in  1593.  Positive  evi- 
dence of  these  publications  (no  longer,  however,  extant)  is  in 
Simancas  Arckivo,  among  the  state  papers  of  Philip  II, — a letter  of 
official  character,  of  June  20,  1593,  addressed  to  that  monarch  by 
Gomez  Perez  Dasmarinas,  Governor-General  of  the  Philippines.25 

Moreover,  bibliographers  of  the  Philippines  record  the  titles 
of  3000  works  and  upwards,  many  of  them  reeditions,  that  re- 
late to  matters  and  things  in  those  islands.  In  his  Imprenta  Re- 
tana  gives  a list  of  Philippina  with  their  titles,  name  of  author, 
printer,  with  date  and  place  of  publication  from  1593  (as  said)  to 
1810.  For  the  sixteenth  century  two  works  are  named, — the 
Doctrinas,  of  Binondo;  for  the  seventeenth,  150;  for  the  eight- 
eenth, 341 ; while  in  the  nineteenth  century,  during  its  nine  open- 
ing years,  24  works  were  printed,  or  a total  in  all  of  517  books, 
which,  with  24  others  of  doubtful  date,  make  541  monuments  of 
the  printing  art  in  Luzon,  up  to  the  year  1810.  Among  these 
philological  treasures  are  twenty-three  Artes,  or  grammars,  in 
Tagal,  Pampango,  Ilocano,  Bicol,  Bisaya-Hiligayna,  Bisaya  of 
Leyte  and  Samar,  and  Pangasinan ; then  eleven  dictionaries,  one 
in  Japanese,  another  in  the  dialect  of  Tankui,  a tribe  of  Indians 
in  an  out-of-the-way  place  in  the  Zambales  country  around  Subig 
Bay  in  Luzon.  The  other  dictionaries  are  in  Tagal,  Bisaya,  Pam- 
pango, and  Bicol.26 

Now  of  all  this  and  similar  evidence  concerning  education  and 
intellectual  activities  in  the  Philippines,  which  it  seems  the  spirit 
of  ordinary  honesty  would  not  have  excluded  from  their  reports, 
not  one  word  even  has  been  recorded  by  the  Commissioners. 
“ But  really  they  were  not  supposed  to  turn  antiquarians.”  Very 
true.  Why  then  have  loaded  the  pages  of  their  reports  with 
references  to  archaeological — old-time  iniquities — scandals  largely, 
however,  mere  oriental  fairy-tales,  to  the  discredit  of  contempora- 
neous churchmen  ? (Scientific  antiquarianism,  like  any  other  art, 
should  work,  it  seems,  both  ways.) 

But  with  this  not  very  irrelevant  digression  on  books,  we 

26  Thus  the  bibliophile  Retana,  in  his  story  of  the  Philippine  press,  La  Imprenta 
en  Pilipinas  [1593-1810],  Madrid,  1897  (p.  5.),  where  he  states  that  he  read  the 
Dasmarinas  letter,  published  also  (he  remarks)  by  his  fellow  antiquarian  Medina. 

26  Something  of  interest  relating  to  books,  etc.,  in  these  Malaysian  archipelagos, 
will  be  found  in  a pamphlet  (by  the  writer)  published  by  the  Free  Library  of  Phila- 
delphia, in  1900.  [See  Some  Notes  on  Philippine  Bibliography,  etc.] 


34  REPORTS  OP'  THE  PHILIPPINE  COMMISSIONS 


return  to  our  pueblo  schools,  rather  low-grade  educational  centres 
however,  established'  throughout  our  Christian  Malaysia,  yet 
withal  very  helpful  agencies,  along  with  their  much  nobler  fellow 
institutions  of  far  higher  rank  in  the  capitals  of  the  Luzon  prov- 
inces, in  uplifting  these  islanders  to  fairly  civilized  planes.  For 
(be  it  stoutly  said)  old-time  writers  as  well  as  modern,  visitors, 
travellers,  sojourners,  even  non-Catholic,  descant  in  sometimes 
glowing  terms  of  praise  for  the  marvels  of  ethic  grandeur  among 
these  Christian  Malays,  their  many  personal  and  social  virtues,  the 
air  of  general  peacefulness  in  their  pueblos,  their  hospitality 
towards  strangers,  respect  for  authority,  safety  of  travel  by  day  or 
night,  and,  above  all,  the  modesty  of  their  women.  So  that  it  is 
easily  credible  that  in  many  provinces  illiteracy  was  so  uncommon 
that  (as  told  by  many  an  annalist)  “ you’d  barely  find  boy  or  girl 
that  couldn’t  read  and  write.”  27 

As  pertinent  to  pedagogy,  therefore  to  ethics,  the  writer  has 
the  following  experience  from  the  lips  of  an  old  Philippine  resi- 
dent : that  “ though  (such  are  his  words)  he  travelled  at  times 
through  the  principal  islands — Luzon,  Panay,  Cebu — in  all  his 
sojourn  he  never  once  at  night  fastened  the  door  of  his  sleep- 
ing-chamber ; never  heard  of  molestation  to  traveller  in  moun- 
tain-pass, forest,  plain,  or  highway;  nor  even  of  thievery,  let 
alone  robbery,  or  other  violence  to  person  or  property.” 

But  with  this  digression  we  get  back  to  our  2140  literary  oases 
in  these  tropical  lands,  where  instruction  suitable  to  native  needs 
was  given  pretty  much  anywhere- — in  cotivento — solid  building,  or 
nipa  hut ; it  mattered  little,  so  long  as  school  kept  in. 

And  here  is  the  schedule  of  studies,  adopted  by  these  little 
Indian  science  and  trade  schools,  as  recorded  by  Dr.  Schurman : 

Pueblo  School-Course  in  the  Philippines,  etc. 

“ Instruction  in  schools  for  natives  shall  for  the  present  be  reduced 
to  elementary-primary  instruction  and  shall  consist  of — 

1 . Christian  doctrine  and  principles  of  morality  and  sacred  his- 
tory suitable  for  children. 

27  Thus  Buzeta,  in  his  Diccionario  iut  ante,  i,  161  b),  relates  of  Hilari6n  Diez, 
the  Augustinian  provincial  of  his  order,  as  well  as  Archbishop  of  Manila  in  1S26, 
who  was  wont  to  say  that  there  was  a multitude  of  pueblos,  as  Argao,  Dalaguete,  Bol- 
jo6n  in  Cebu,  and  many  in  the  province  of  Iloilo— “ en  los  que  es  diflcil  hollar  un  solo 
niflo  6 nitia  que  no  sepa  leer  y escribir." 


ON  RELIGIO  US  AND  ED  UCA  TIONA  L MA  TTERS  3 5 


2.  Reading. 

3.  Writing. 

4.  Practical  instruction  in  Spanish,  including  grammar  and  orthog- 
raphy. 

5.  Principles  of  arithmetic,  comprising  the  four  rules  for  figures, 
common  fractions,  decimal  fractions,  and  instruction  in  the  metric 
system  with  its  equivalents  in  ordinary  weights  and  measures. 

6.  Instruction  in  general  geography  and  Spanish  history. 

7.  Instruction  in  practical  agriculture  as  applied  to  the  products 
of  the  country. 

8.  Rules  of  deportment. 

9.  Vocal  music.”  [ Schurman , i,  31.] 

That  is  to  say,  in  the  islands  were  the  following  boys’  schools 
and  others  devoted  exclusively  to  girls,  of  the  four-fold  grade — 
entrada  (or  entrance  primary-schools),  then  ascenso,  termino  de 
secunda , and  termino  de  primera. 


BOYS’.  GIRLS’.  TOTAL. 

Philippines 1082  1047  2129 

Marianas 2 2 4 

East  Carolines 2 2 4 

West  Carolines 2 1 3 


1088  1052  2140 


Our  Philippine  Indians  then, — and  are  they  really  so  different 
from  their  red  brethren  here  ? — seem  to  have  been  fairly  well  pro- 
vided with  technical  learning,  enough  at  least  for  their  duties  of 
life.  They  were  taught  to  be  honest,  upright  men  and  women ; 
to  rule  their  households  justly ; to  honor  God ; to  begin  and  end  the 
day  with  prayer;  to  tell  no  lies;  and  thus  be  contented  and  happy 
in  spirit.  (Old  histories  tell  of  the  Philippines  that  the  natives 
were  a joyful,  happy,  light-hearted  people.)  “ But  it  is  not  high- 
class  education!”  Maybe  not.  Yet  our  civil-service  commis- 
sioners, it  seems,  would  gladly  welcome  a school-course  just  as 
good. 

As  regards  the  system  of  Philippine  education  too  the  stu- 
dent of  pedagogy  must  reflect  that,  except  some  pueblo  “ lock- 
ups”— car  cels,  in  the  islands  were  no  state-prisons  (except  at 
Manila),  no  asylums  for  indigents,  no  penitentiaries,  no  houses  of 
refuge,  no  poor-houses,  no  reformatories  (except  the  Magdalen 
Retreat  at  Manila),  and,  to  the  glory  of  Philippine  Christianity 


36  REPORTS  OF  THE  PHILIPPINE  COMMISSIONS 


be  it  said,  until  a very  few  years  ago,  no  houses  of  disorderly 
character.28 

Nor  were  there  any  truant-officers  in  the  Philippines,-— all 
adjuncts  pretty  much  of  modern  civilization  as  inspired  and  much 
regulated,  and  greatly  tinkered  with  by  our  doctrinaire  politicians. 

And  here  is  the  law  requiring  attendance  at  school,  from  the 
same  Commissioner’s  reports : 

Law  Obliging  School  Attendance. 

‘ ‘ Primary  instruction  is  obligatory  for  all  natives.  The  fathers, 
tutors,  or  guardians  of  children  shall  send  them  to  the  public  schools 
between  the  ages  of  10  and  12  years,  unless  they  prove  that  they  give 
them  sufficient  instruction  in  their  homes  or  in  private  schools.  Those 
who  do  not  obey  this  rule  shall  be  admonished  by  the  authorities,  and 
compelled  to  do  so  by  a fine  of  from  one -half  real  to  2 reals  (3  to  13 
cents  gold  at  the  present  rate  of  exchange  !),  when  there  is  a school  in 
the  town  at  such  a distance  that  the  children  can  conveniently  attend. 
The  fathers  and  guardians  of  children  may  also  send  them  to  the 
schools  between  the  ages  of  6 and  14  years.”  [Schurman,  i,  32.]** 

In  praise  of  these  petty  pueblo  schools,  of  their  curriculum 
and  general  proficiency  as  educational  agencies,  despite  many 
drawbacks  (noticed  by  Dr.  Schurman)  on  the  part  of  civil— -offi- 
cial-—intermeddling,  we  have  these  testimonials,  all  from  the  prose- 
cution’s own  witnesses  : 

“In  the  different  provinces  there  are  lawyers  and  doctors,  and  pro- 
fessional men  who  are  very  well  educated.”  [Test,  of  J.  F.  McLeod 
in  Schurman , ii,  9.] 

While  in  answer  to  the  question : “ What  proportion  of  the 
people  of  Batangas  can  read  and  write  ? ” Senor  Felipe  Gongalez 
Calderon  says : 

‘ ‘ Seventy-five  or  eighty  per  cent.  The  province  is  the  most  cultured  in 
the  Archipelago.  I have  some  600  laborers  on  my  plantation  in 
Batangas,  and  of  these  there  are  certainly  not  more  than  twenty  who 
cannot  read  and  write.”  [Test,  id.,  ii,  67,  68.] 

28  At  Manila  houses  of  ill-fame  were  officially  protected  (otherwise  licensed)  first 

in  or  about  1888,  under  Jose  Centeno  y Garcia,  Civil  Governor  ad  interim.  (From 
The  Katipunan,  or  the  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Filipino  Commune.  By  Francis  St. 
Clair.  Manila:  Tip.  “Amigos  del  Pais,”  Palacio  258.  1902.  [Pp.  61,65.]) 

29  In  the  “school  law”  printed  above  the  sentence  in  curved  lines  (with  the 
exclamation  mark)  and  the  italics  seem  to  be  Dr.  Worcester’s  ; the  paper  in  this 
volume  on  “ Education”  having  been  compiled  by  him. 


ON  RELIGIOUS  AND  EDUCATIONAL  MATTERS  3 7 


Even  Judge  Taft  himself,  though  (as  usual)  in  rather  begrudg- 
ing terms,  admits  that  the  Filipinos, 

“as  a rule,  . . . possess  mechanical  skill,  and  they  excel  in 

writing  and  drawing. ’ ’ [Taft,  105.] 

Then,  too,  that 

“the  Filipinos  are  born  musicians,  and,  under  normal  conditions, 
buy  a good  many  pianos.  ’ ’ [Id.  ,61.] 

(In  our  own  Indian  schools  “ out  West,”  I wonder  whether 
our  aborigines  are  taught  drawing  and  music?  or  have  they 
“ many  pianos  ” in  their  pueblos  ?) 

Enough  admissions,  we  think,  that  the  Philippines  had  schools, 
plenty  of  them,  where  pupils  were  taught  even  fine  arts  thor- 
oughly as  well  as  industrial,  but  above  all  good  behavior,  which 
for  colored  or  white  men  is  all  essential  for  happy  life.  But  had 
the  Commissioners  been  really  in  earnest  in  search  for  evidence  of 
good  school  work  to  add  to  their  reports  thereon,  that  have  been 
by  some  enthusiasts  styled  as  “complete,  elaborate,  sound,” 30 
— evidence,  too,  of  the  strongest  character  throughout  all  those 
isles,  that  was  before  their  very  eyes  to  be  seen  even  yet  by  all 
men,  though  much  of  it  no  doubt  is  now  in  ruins,  they  would 
have  described  at  least  briefly  the  handiwork  of  those  missionary 
pedagogues  and  their  pueblo  alumni  to  be  witnessed  in  the  roads 
and  bridges,  in  the  irrigating  and  drainage  canals,  in  the  swamp 
and  forest  lands  reclaimed  for  tillage,  in  the  pueblo  churches,  and 
pueblo  convents,  and  pueblo  buildings,  all  erected  by  those  self- 
same industrious  and  skilful  natives,  who,  whether  slaves  and 
peons,  as  pictured  by  romancers,  or  freemen  like  our  own  American 

80  A few  months  ago  we  chanced  to  look  over  a paper— a kind  of  semi-political 
canonization  of  Judge  Taft- — in  a prominent  periodical  {North  American  [monthly] 
for  September,  1902,  pp.  229-308,  for  “The  New  Philippine  Government,”  by 
Sidney  Webster),  wherein,  with  some  amazement,  because  of  the  unqualified  and 
superlative  admiration  for  the  Judge,  we  read  the  following  eulogies  relating  to  his 
report,  which  is  styled  “ elaborate  . . . based  on  an  official  examination  by 
Governor  {then  Commissioner ) Taft  . . .”  Moreover,  that  “it  is  to  be  relied 
upon  by  the  country,  one  would  say,  as  presenting  essential  facts  and  sound  conclu- 
sions.” [P.  305.]  In  view,  however,  of  some  other  “essential”  facts  that  we 
have  shown  have  been  omitted  by  that  self-same  Judge,  the  writer  in  question  is 
asked,  in  all  seriousness,  whether  really  he  has  ever  studied  Judge  Taft’s  reports  ; 
or,  he  will  excuse  us  for  adding,  did  he  ever  even  read  them  through  ? 


38  REPORTS  OF  THE  PHILIPPINE  COMMISSIONS 


aborigines  (it  matters  little),  were  yet  taught  honest  labor, — the 
elements  at  least,  of  useful  and  beautiful  arts,  the  way  to  keep  to 
their  task,  to  labor,  too,  with  a sense  of  nobleness  and  pride, 
as  shown  in  their  monuments,  and  (be  it  emphasized  sturdily) 
their  handiwork  shows  that  they  learned  their  business  well. 

And  evidence  of  still  higher  character?  Then,  too,  in  all 
fairness  should  have  been  described  by  our  Commissioners  the 
many  exemplars  of  architecture,  painting,  and  sculpture,  in 
Manila,  and  elsewhere  in  Cebu  and  Iloilo,  in  carving  and  engrav- 
ing and  chiselling,  in  dwellings,  in  town-halls,  in  church  and  school- 
buildings,  all  tokens  of  native  skilfulness  these,  due  in  large  meas- 
ure to  the  benign  and  art-loving  influence  derived  from  their  little 
pueblo  schools  through  the  painstaking  energy  of  their  parrocos , 
officers,  guardians  of  their  numerous  church,  social,  and  educa- 
tional guilds.31 

Yet,  if  we  mistake  not,  so  busy  were  the  Commissioners  with 
their  investigations  into  Church  political  matters,  they  failed  to 
recognize  these  art-grandeurs  before  their  very  eyes.  For, 
though  the  scholarly  taste  of  the  Commissioners  might  not  have 
cared  much  for  mere  material  beauty,  tastiness,  skill,  their  broad 
judicial  spirit,  however,  should  not,  we  opine,  have  omitted  some 
brief  tribute  at  least  to  our  ecclesiastical  aesthetes  in  the  Philip- 
pines. 

Thus  do  we  enshrine  in  our  pages  another  collection  of  judi- 
cial lacunae  relating  to  the  elevating  and  ennobling  influence  in 
lofty  ethical  training  given  in  those  pueblo  schools,  working 
through  the  agency  of  religion  to  develop  Christian  manliness 
and  womanliness,  wherein  rightly  much  is  to  be  admired,  nor 
little,  if  aught,  to  be  greatly  ashamed  of. 

But  what  do  the  Commissioners  mean  in  saying 

“From  the  beginning  the  ( pueblo ) schools  were  entirely  under  the 
supervision  of  the  religious  orders.  ” [ Taft,  105.] 

When,  as  any  student  ol  Philippine  or  Spanish  history  should 
know,  for  the  last  one  hundred  years  or  so,  school  schedules, 

31  In  El  Archipielago,  by  Jesuit  scholars,  a large  work  of  encyclopaedical  charac- 
ter, published  by  Government  [Washington,  1900],  and  in  Gazetteer  (described 
ahead),  we  exult  in  the  preservation  through  photographic  views  of  very  many  of 
these  monuments  of  ripe,  cultured  spirit,  some  so  tasty,  so  majestic  in  appearance  as 
to  seem  to  our  Western  spirit  masterpieces  in  a way  of  art-genius. 


ON  RELIGIO  US  AND  ED  UCA  TIONAL  MA  TTERS  39 

rules,  and  programmes,  etc.,  in  those  islands,  the  same  pretty- 
much  as  in  the  rest  of  Caucasia,  have  been  tinkered  at  by  theo- 
rists of  various  political  colors  ? 

Or  this  of  Dr.  Schurman’s,  who,  speaking  of  the  weather 
remarks  that 

“it  is  often  quite  impossible  for  small  children  to  attend  school 
on  account  of  their  distance  from  it  . . [Schur- 

man,  i,  31.] 

Well.  In  bad  weather  even  in  Pennsylvania  “small  children” 
(and  big  ones  too)  find  it  “impossible  to  attend”  their  own  pueblo 
schools.  Are  churchmen,  therefore,  to  be  blamed  for  the  weather 
in  the  Philippines,  and  the  pupils’  non-attendance  therefor  ? 

Then  Dr.  Worcester  says  that 

“The  only  educational  advantages  obtainable  by  the  common  people 
of  the  Archipelago  are  those  afforded  by  the  primary  schools.  ’ ’ [Schur- 
man,  i,  17.] 

No  doubt.  Even  in  our  largest  cities  here  in  America,  what 
other  means  of  education  than  their  own  pueblo  common  schools 
has  the  great  mass  of  white  Tagals — the  bread-winners  of  the 
world  in  mill,  forge,  mine  and  factory  ? 

Again  we  find  the  Doctor  complaining  that 

“ the  instruction  in  Spanish  was  in  very  many  cases  purely  imagin- 
ary,” . . . [Id.  i,  31.] 

No  wonder.  It’s  just  like  those  bad  Katipuneros  to  make  this 
charge  against  our  mission  schools.  Still  has  not  Dr.  Worcester 
heard  at  times  that  our  own  civil-service  examiners  find  fault  fre- 
quently with  not  only  our  pueblo  schools,  but  institutions  even  of 
higher  name,  for  very  similar  neglect  ? 

But  let  us  on  to  the  end  of  our  paper  with  the  words  of  Judge 
Taft: 

“ . . . the  Philippine  people  belong  to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  ’ ’ 
l Taft , 23.] 

“The  Philippine  people  love  the  Catholic  Church. ’ ’ [Id.,  30.] 

And 

‘ ‘ As  the  Catholic  Church  is  and  ought  to  continue  a prominent  factor 
in  the  life,  peace,  contentment,  and  progress  of  the  Philippine  people, 


40  REPORTS  OF  THE  PHILIPPINE  COMMISSIONS 


...  it  would  seem  the  wisest  course,  ...  to  frame  civil  laws 
which  shall  accord  with  views  conscientiously  entertained  by  Catholics 
— priests  and  laymen  ...”  [Id.,  33.] 

Brave  words  these.  Here  at  least  we  agree  with  the  Judge, 
for,  as  in  the  past  in  Malaysia  and  elsewhere,  as  attested  by  the 
history  of  mankind,  so  in  the  future  we  heartily  believe  the  only 
bulwark  of  law  and  order  will  be  the  Church  of  our  forefathers, 
that  ever  has  been  the  promoter  of  works  leading  to  the  higher 
life- — of  virtues,  of  heroisms,  of  letters,  of  sciences,  of  arts,  which 
find  their  complement  in  the  fullest  and  noblest  degree  in  monu- 
ments of  all-round  beneficence — in  Christian  schools,  Christian 
asylums,  Christian  homes;  monuments  that  in  their  grandeur  and 
multitude  and  variety  can  be  witnessed  in  no  other  land  but 
Christian,  in  neither  Moslem,  Buddhist,  nor  heathen. 

Final  Conclusion. 

To  sum  up  then  our  conclusions.  At  the  outset  of  this  paper 
we  charged  the  Philippine  Commissioners  with  prejudice  against 
the  defendants.  And  we  attacked  their  reports  on  many  grounds 
as  faulty  for  incompleteness,  for  inaccuracies,  for  unfairness-— a 
kind  of  indictment,  if  you  choose  so  to  style  it,  that  hinges  on 
the  twofold  ground  of  faults  of  omission,  faults  of  commission, 
in  that  the  Commissioners  kept  in  the  background,  out  of  sight, 
whatever  evidence  might  make  for  the  defendants,  while  at  the 
same  time  they  admitted — brought  forward  as  evidence  whatever 
would  make  for  the  prosecution. 

Are  we  wrong,  therefore,  in  contending  that  these  reports 
cannot  stand  as  historical  documents  on  the  score  of  omissions  in 
matters  of  weighty  importance;  nor  stand  as  judicial  decisions  on 
the  score  of  manifold  antagonisms  therein  against  the  defendant 
churchmen,  against  the  evidence  itself  of  the  prosecution’s  own 
witnesses,  against  the  evidence,  too,  of  the  Commissioners’  own 
eyes? 

Fr.  Thomas  C.  Middleton,  O.S.A. 


Villanova  College , Pa. 


PAMPHLET  BINDER 

- Syracuse,  N.  Y. 

. Stockton,  Calif. 


